Talk:Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I did not find a mention of the TOC and what you deleted was not a random quote. Where may I ask shall we find a mention of the TOC in wikipedia policy? Going around blanking out stuff can be considered vandalism That fact that you may be an admin does not grant you the right to give misleading statements about Wiki policy and mis-implement others.--CltFn 04:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

The criticism section sounds extremely POV. A fix is necessary.--Kevin W. 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I can't believe there are only positive reviews of this book. I added a POV tag. -Lapinmies 08:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You are completely right. That section reads more like a back-cover blurb or an advertisement than anything that should appear in an encyclopedia. The current text needs to be either drastically rewritten or deleted entirely. Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY GOSH! We might've found a book that has no criticism. I'll fix it, you hypersensitive people, you. --SirAndrew1 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism, yes; critical reviews, no. In this interview, Malkin was asked about the reaction to Invasion and replied:
The reaction from most elites has been silence. There have been no reviews in major newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Even my former employers—the Seattle Times and L.A. Daily News—have ignored the book. Other than Cal Thomas, none of the big-name Beltway newspaper pundits wrote about the book.
Invasion was one of the most successful conservative books of 2002. So what accounts for the near-blackout among Beltway elites and in the mainstream media?
Conservative advocates of illegal alien-friendly policies, like Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal and Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute, presumably are aware of the book but may not want to call attention to it, because they know that doing so will generate buzz and boost sales. In addition, I believe that many of my opponents are uncomfortable addressing national security-based arguments against illegal immigration, and would prefer to trot out well-worn pre-9/11 arguments about the economic and social implications of illegal immigration.
Left-leaning advocates of illegal alien-friendly policies seem not to be aware of the book. In October or late September, Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum told a Washington DC radio host she had not heard of Invasion. By that time, the book had already made the New York Times extended bestseller list. I guess it wasn't on her radar screen because it has not been reviewed in any of the big papers; some liberals apparently do not listen to conservative talk radio or watch Fox News or read books published by conservative publishing houses like Regnery.
In most cases, I attribute the silence not to willful neglect or ignorance but to lack of interest. Most editors and pundits, including conservative opinion leaders, simply do not care about illegal immigration, even after 9/11. The chasm between the public and elites on this issue is large and has been documented by survey research (see http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1402.html).
I've put a condensed version of this quote in the article as an explanation of the one-sided reviews and removed the POV tag. I hope I struck a reasonable balance; corrections welcome. Cheers, CWC 10:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should we do a book review now?[edit]

just wondering.

Sections removed May 2007[edit]

I've moved two sections of the article here for discussion:

==Contents==
  • Part I The Terrorist Welcome Mat
    • Chapter 1 What Would Mohamed Do?
    • Chapter 2 Pandering While Osama Plots
    • Chapter 3 The Profiteers
  • Part II More Menaces in Our Midst
    • Chapter 4 Serial Incompetence: The Angel Resendiz Case
    • Chapter 5 In Cold Blood: Foreign Cop-Killers on the Loose
    • Chapter 6 The Torturers Next Door
  • Part III Our Own Worst Enemies
    • Chapter 7 House of Horrors: The INS Mess
    • Chapter 8 Welcome to Miami
    • Chapter 9 Fatal Errors: The Technology Boondoggle
    • Chapter 10 "It Ain't Over 'Til the Alien Wins"
    • Conclusion: What Must America Do?
==Citing this book==
===MLA format===
Malkin, Michelle. Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002.

I don't think either belongs in an encyclopedia article about a book. (All this info is easily available at Amazon.com.) Does anyone disagree? CWC 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Invasion.jpeg[edit]

Image:Invasion.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Invasion.jpeg[edit]

Image:Invasion.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a Fair Use Rationale. CWC 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full name of book?[edit]

  • Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces is the title of this article.
  • Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores is the title of this book, according to the cover of the book.
  • What is the reason for the abbreviated book title being used as the article title? KConWiki (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the fact that there has not been a response to this question in the two years since I have posed it, I am just going to rename this article. KConWiki (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion:_How_America_Still_Welcomes_Terrorists,_Criminals,_and_Other_Foreign_Menaces_to_Our_Shores&oldid=1207731327"