Talk:Caroline Glick

Caroline B Glick

In her books like the Israeli solution, her name is always given as Caroline B Glick. However they do not say what the “B” stands for. Does anyone know what her middle name is and if so please edit the page to incorporate it therein. Thank you.

Edit request from 99.132.106.62, 7 June 2010

{{editprotected}} Hi, the following edit further documents the racism allegation against Caroline Glick. The below edit comes from a veteran Haaretz journalist, and is intended for the first paragraph of the "Allegations of Racism" section. Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport has alleged that the Glick-edited video demonstrated prejudice against Muslims, saying that the clip is "roughly done, not very sophisticated, anti-Muslim." 99.132.106.62 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

References

For the attention of the IPs inserting the "racism section"

1. Calling the removal of information potentially libellous because consensus has not been established on the talk page is not vandalism, it is policy. If you continue to harass users on their talk pages calling them vandals, you will be blocked.
2. Youtube is a poor source, no matter how "official" the video may be. Stick to the news articles.
3. Stop edit warring, the article has been protected to prevent you from editing it now. Even if you are using separate IPs the duck test supports the assertion that this is all one user, and therefore you are still risking a violation of the three-revert rule which will result in your blocking.

Take these principles on board, and discuss the problems below. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses

I inserted facts documenting instances of named sources accusing Catherine Glick of racism. I'd like to take a moment to address comments in the "For the attention of the IPs inserting the 'racism section.'"

Please do not misinterpret documentation of allegations of racism for allegations themselves. The section inserted, apparently subject to some controversy, is "accusations of recism." In that section, the accusations of racism that several writers--Eileen Read, Alex Pareene, and Paul J. Balles--have leveled at Caroline Glick are documented. Properly, no opinion or point of view has been expressed in the "Allegations of racism" section as to the veracity of these allegations.

1. I therefore cannot understand why documenting such allegations could be considered controversial, let alone "potentially libelous" as you say. The documentation of specific allegations of racism by named sources need only prove that such allegations exist, not their veracity. Documentation of written defenses of Ms. Glick's work are solicited and in fact highly encouraged.

2. I apologize for linking to www.youtube.com. The link I should have used was the one from Ms. Glick's homepage. That link is at: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/06/we-con-the-world---the-gaza-fl.php

3. I never claimed to be other than a single user even though, incidentally, all of the contributions to the "Allegations of racism" section are not mine.

Incidentally, if it matters, I for my part am a fan of Ms. Glick's work and do not believe that she is a racist. I contributed to the section to advance the Wikipedia mission to provide a forum where issues of public significance can be documented in a way as to provide reasoned information to the public. one of Ms. Glick's detractors, Eileen Read, wrote an article in the Huffington Post accusing Ms. Glick of racism and asking that she be fired. The article is making rounds all over the internet and has likely been read by hundreds of thousands, if not many more. It'd be a great shame from my perspective if Ms. Glick's career suffered as a result of such charges (since they are, in my own personal view, baseless)--such charges should be documented neutrally and weighed against the writings of Ms. Glick and her defenders, aiming only to inform the public, which can then decide. When I inserted a reference arguing that Ms. Glick's positions are "not racist" but "common sense," it was taken down by those same persons invoking BLP standards and undue weight. 69.110.8.85 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing only the last point: Check the edit summaries. That removed "reference" was the comment of one reader of a blog site. Think where WP would be if anyone's anonymous comments on a blog could be selectively cited in WP. An excellent backdoor way to insinuate personal opinions into Wikipedia, but hardly meeting RS criteria. All the more so for a BLP article. Whether pro-Glick or anti-Glick, definitely the POV of a small minority (one reader), in violation of WP:UNDUE. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.69.110.8.85 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The allegations for racism are completely un proportional – the paragraphed is no doubly too long and exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.48.49 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They should probably be cut down to a summary and incorporated into the "Life" section, much as her awards are. I'm not certain the Slate quote is appropriate, since that source is speaking of the financial backers of the parody and not of Glick personally; this would be much better used in an article about the video itself. So perhaps something along the lines of:

In 2010, Glick appeared in We Con the World, a satirical video by Latma TV, which satirizes the Gaza flotilla attempt to defy the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The video has been criticized by (X, Y, Z) as anti-Arab or anti-Muslim.(refs) Eileen Reed in the Huffington Post wrote that the video "[pokes] fun at them in a tasteless and blatantly racist way" and called for Glick to "be fired for making fun of the dead."(ref) Glick has dismissed claims that the video is offensive, saying "There are people who support Hamas who think it is in poor taste. I think it’s in poor taste to support Hamas. The point of satire is to make people uncomfortable. We’re not trying to be fair and balanced, we’re trying to make a point."(ref)

Wording can probably be improved, but the important things are: 1. We have the claims. (I notice that currently the "anti-Arab" and "anti-Muslim" are not referenced, but this should not be difficult to add.) 2. We have her statement regarding those claims. (Which we do not currently have.) We could also add 3. Significant reliable sources that support her view. However, 4. Really in-depth coverage of criticism of the video and reaction to the criticism should be left to the main article about the video. Shimeru 00:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the Glick page because there are errors. I noticed two in the 'Allegations of Racism' section: Alex Pareene's name is misspelled "Pereene" and the article quoted did not appear in Slate but in Salon.Potterjazz (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Stupendous double standards

It is beyond me that the 'Allegations of racism' section is still up, and the article has been 'protected'.

There are 'allegations', from far better sources than 'The Huffington Post', about thousands of issues about thousands of people that are not allowed to be on their Wiki page because it contravenes Wiki rules.

Who cares what 2 or 3 reporters / bloggers no-one has heard of declare of Ms Glick?

There are 'allegations' that Lady Gaga was a man, that Yasser Arafat was a homosexual, and thousands and of others, yet, none of these 'allegations' are recorded on their wiki pages. Why is it different with Caroline Glick?

Who is responsible for this unintelligent act of protecting a page in its current state which so clearly goes against Wiki rules ???

What a joke Wiki has become. Sagi Nahor (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The problematic edit violates wiki rules on at least three levels. UNDUE, BLP and FRINGE.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go, entirely and quickly. Admins, are you monitoring this discussion? To make matters worse, the video itself is no longer available for reference on U-tube. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I ask that protection be lifted so that a fluctuating, dynamic IP account, that has been the subject of an ANI [1] and sock puppet investigation, not be given the last word. Consensus against the inclusion of the IP user's edit has been established. Please lift protection so that the contentious edit can be dealt with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll let an uninvolved admin make any corrections necessary via the {{editprotected}} functionality as it was intended. If the reviewing admin thinks unprotecting is in order, then great. Otherwise, we're dealing with WP:WRONG. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps semi-protection would be more appropriate. This would prevent fluctuating IP's from making disruptive edits. Semi protection could then be lifted on the date that full protection was to expire. I think that's a decent compromise.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not dealing with WP:Vandalism or WP:BLP violations here. This is a straight-forward content dispute and semi-protection should not be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users per WP:Semi. Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree as per Jiujitsuguy this violates UNDUE, BLP and FRINGE. This was a satire. The way you produce a spoof is to dress up like the people you're spoofing. Q. How many peace activists does it take to change a light bulb? A. That's not funny!AMuseo (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

comment. Also, I came to the page to start a category Category:Israeli satirists. And, there is a page We Con the World. I think it has links to places where the video can be seen.AMuseo (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently we have to wait five more days, until the protection expires, to follow consensus and remove the section. Meanwhile, Glick is defamed--the very thing the BLP rules are intended to prevent. Sad. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I give credit to Shimeru for doing a decent job in fixing and re-working the edit in a manner that is more consistent with BLP, UNDUE guidelines.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, Toddst1 has some explaining to do in light of the fact that he gave deference to a fluctuating IP (who was the subject of a Sock investigation as well as an ANI complaint) over the consensus of nearly all established editors on this thread. Clearly, the accusations of racism by marginal bloggers amount to defamation and libel and violate WP:BLP as well as WP:FRINGE. Devoting an entire section to it violates WP:UNDUE. This calls into question Todd1's objectivity and his sarcastic and gratuitous remark here call into question his judgment and ability to be an admin.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, none of the above has substantiated the double-standard claim. Where is the double-standard? Several people have claimed that Glick's work is racist. Nothing controversial about simply documenting these claims. Whether or not Glick's work is racist is plausible, though not confirmed. Both the (documented, attributable) views of her defenders as well as those of detractors should be included. Thanks guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.197.151 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that ministrel shows, whose racist content no one contests, were parodies. Calling something "parody" says nothing to refute the racism allegations. 75.33.140.142 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that it's undue weight for half the article to focus on allegations of racism related to a video that makes up a small part of Glick's body of work. Please don't restore the section without discussion. Shimeru 04:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And bloggers' comments and hit pieces are abysmal sources to quote in a BLP article. Thanks for removing the section. It should stay out. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus here, there is input in favor of _documenting_ these numerous allegations. The four named sources alleging racism do not discuss only Glick's video, some discuss her work as a whole. Please exercise more care before purging the additions of others.

In response to Herz: first, the four named sources alleging racism are not "blog comments." Second, calling these criticisms "hit pieces" is nothing but innuendo based on your point of view. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.29.154 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to purge "allegations of racism" section

It seems that users (or perhaps one, posing as several) has on several occasions attempted to purge the "allegations of racism" section. The section cites, at the time of this writing, four writers who allege Glick's work to be racist: Eileen Read, Meron Rapoport, Alex Pereene, and Paul J. Balles. Those making the allegations are named, and recording the allegations is in line with BLP standards.

There is nothing POV about documenting these allegations any more than there is about documenting criticism of global warming, Jim Crow, Jane Austin's fiction, or any topic for that matter, whatever it's merit. It seems that those attempting to purge the "allegations of racism" section have confused documentation of a viewpoint with the viewpoint itself.

Furthermore, a look at the sourcing indicates that while the four cited writers alleging Glick's work to be racist in some cases focus on her parody, there is discussion of her other work. In fact, the piece by Paul J. Balles was written prior to Glick's parody.

To any persons seeing this talk page in future, please note the attempts to silence the contributions to this page in the past. 69.110.29.154 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is semiprotected for a short time. Please try to achieve consensus for this change. Addressing the WP:UNDUE concerns would be most helpful. Shimeru 05:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru: please explain how the WP:UNDUE criticism applies in cutting the allegations of racism leveled at Ms. Glick. WP:UNDUE represents the imperative that an article attempt to represents all viewpoints on an issue, and that a minority viewpoint not usurp a majority viewpoint on a given issue. On the issue of Ms. Glick's alleged racism, what the majority and minority viewpoints are remains unclear. At least four writers have gone on record, in print, asserting that Ms. Glick's work is racist. A cursory look online finds that Ms. Glick has found the accusations serious enough to merit response, at http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/06/defend-free-speech---support-l.php. Her response should surely be included. But it seems difficult to find many going on record denying the racism allegations, at least as of this moment. I do not see how simply saying "WP:UNDUE" merits eliminating the contributions of those who (it is implied) hold the minority view on this issue. On this point, bear in mind that minstrel shows--in which whites dressed in black face, mocking blacks--enjoyed huge popularity in late 19th and 20th century America. However, the fact that these shows enjoyed huge popularity in no way indicates that the view that these shows were racist is (or was) a minority view. Entertainment can enjoy huge popularity and, at the same time, common sense (as well as prevailing commentary) can note that such entertainment is racist. I mention this only to ask that in assessing what I have written above, you do not conflate the question of WP:UNDUE issue on the racism of Ms. Glick's work with the question of how popular her work is. Work can be extremely popular and at the same time, there can be near consensus among critics that it is racist. (I am not suggesting that there exists consensus that Ms. Glick's work is racist, but only that it is far from clear that the view of her work as racist is a minority view: as noted, several have weighed in on the racist character of Ms. Glick's work, and it remains to be seen if there is as strong support for the contention that her work is not racist.)

Lastly, even if the "allegations of racism" simply embody nutty, marginal, minority views (which I do not believe they do, as I say above), I don't see how simply calling "WP:UNDUE" can be a good justification for eliminating documentation of such a view. First, simply calling "WP:UNDUE" without evidence is easy to do for nearly any view. Second, for the same reason, shouldn't the burden be on those calling "WP:UNDUE" to summon at least some evidence to show that this is in fact a minority view? I say this since, if a view is actually an overrepresented minority view, it would presumably be easy to find views dissenting from it. None of the two or three editors who took down the "allegations of racism" section (in no case with any prior discussion) has apparently been able to find a view deviating from the view that they call the minority view. I'm sure such views exist, but they should have to provide evidence for the WP:UNDUE claim before rubbishing the contributions of fellow editors. The task of wikipedia contributors is to expand horizons, not to arbitrarily restrict and purge anytime something seems counter to what an editor happens to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.29.154 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. We absolutely should report the accusations of racism made in reliable sources. The question is whether, in doing so, we should add a section so large that half of a biographical article deals with this single event -- particularly since that event is not covered in depth in this article, but rather has its own separate article. That is devoting a very large amount of space to something that is a rather small (if currently controversial) part of her life, and that seems to be the main objection to keeping such a section. It implies that this is the most important, the most defining, moment of her life to date, worthy of as much coverage as her entire military and journalism careers.

I think this article into a long tract about the video -- whether supporting or opposing Glick or both -- would be inappropriate. I think that sort of depth of commentary would be better placed in the article about the video, with only a brief summary in this article. You evidently disagree, but I don't understand why you feel this article is the appropriate place to host an analysis of such length, nor why you feel that it does not eclipse the rest of the article. Shimeru 08:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Shimeru, I agree with much of what you wrote. Can I ask you to be careful to avoid mischaracterizing the proposed addition on the Glick flotilla video/racism controversy (a proposed addition which I don't agree with, in its present form, by the way). You have twice on this Talk page said addition is much larger than it really is ("...a section so large that half of a biographical article..."; and "...it's undue weight for half the article..."). In fact the addition as it appears here is 232 words, in an article of 1164 words, so it would be much less than "half", actually less than one-fifth. I don't mean to be pedantic but sometimes neutrality often can be found in accuracy. Cheers, RomaC (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My word-count script shows that version of the article as 1006 words long (not counting references or section headers), so about 23%. I don't think that difference changes my argument. On the other hand, the 45 or so words I added in reference to the criticism could probably be expanded a little bit. Shimeru 22:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru, to this extent that this matter deserves serious thought (I say this since with every exchange, this seems less evident), I'll note a few points of clarification that seemed to me obvious but that I believe you've either misunderstood or not seen fit to address:

1. "We absolutely should report the accusations of racism made in reliable sources." You say this above. As I and apparently others have noted above and in the editing log, your statement embodies a confusion that has been repeated several times: you mistake the documentation of an allegation for the allegation itself. If (1) the section did not aim to document allegations of racism, but instead aimed to reach a finding as to whether or not Ms. Glick is racist, and (2) if Wikipedia editors were indeed finders of fact, tasked with weighing evidence in order to reach a judgment, you would indeed be correct that the reliability and strength of the accusations leveled would our task to value and discern. Fortunately, neither assumptions (1) or (2) hold. The allegations of racism leveled by four named sources--Eileen Read, Meron Rapoport, Alex Pereene, and Paul J. Balles--are fully reliable in the sense that no one doubts their authenticity. Whether or not these accusations are correct is not up to you or me to decide, given that an assessment of the correctness of the accusations entails a value judgment of the kind that Wikipedia editors are not to make.

In case this isn't obvious enough, remember that in the law of evidence, there is one exception to the hearsay rule that I think might be instructive in clarifying any confusion. The exception to the hearsay rule is for "performative utterences"--those statements whose mere enunciation makes them true. It should be obvious enough that criticism is performative in the sense that articulation of the criticism itself makes the criticism fact--not in the sense that the criticism is correct, but in the sense that the criticism has occurred, and can be documented (indeed, it documents itself). Like any "criticism" or "controversy" section of a wikipedia entry, the "accusations of racism" section must be reliable in the sense that the accusations have occurred (and, according to BLP standards, that these accusations are by specific, enumerable persons going on record). That is the only sense in which "reliability" can have any meaning in this context (unless Wikipedia editors are to become finders of fact in the sense that they are to make value judgments as to the strength or weakness of different views rather than document in NPOV fashion).

2. You say, with justification, that the "allegations of racism" leveled at Ms. Glick should not take half the article. Even 23% of the article is too much. But how is this justification for purging a section? Please let me know. The question is simple enough. None of the editors, you included, who evidently found the section too large seemed to have considered abbreviating it. I don't see how the undue prolixity of a section can be grounds for eliminating it. Please explain.

3. The allegations of racism leveled at Ms. Glick does not exclusively concern the video. As already noted, allegations preceded the video, and those subsequent discuss her other work.

4. The above points notwithstanding, I think the elephant in the room is really why in the case of this article, those (including you) who unilaterally take down the contributions of others are able to do so with a one or two word explanation (e.g. "UNDUE," "BLP) along with "get consensus for the change." Why is the burden of argument on the contributor whose work has been disposed of, particularly when he and others have gone to great lengths to repeat obvious responses to evidently unthought criticisms of his work? This seems to me ridiculous. Why isn't the burden in the other direction? Shouldn't those crying foul have any burden in substantiating one word retorts before taking down content? Why isn't "consensus" required before doing that? Please address these objections, which I thought were clear enough in my earlier response, but which you haven't addressed in any substantive way. 69.110.29.154 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

1. It very much is necessary to reliably source allegations of racism, or any serious allegation. Please review WP:BLP. Hearsay is not sufficient for our purposes; our policy offers standards more strict than are required by the law (at least, American law, which is the law I am most familiar with; I know libel law is much more strict in some countries, such as the UK).
2. According to the WP:CRIT, criticism or controversy sections should not be separated out, but should be incorporated into the main flow of the article. See, for instance, Barack Obama. That's why I oppose a separate section, no matter what it's called.
3. I've seen no support for that in the sources offered. If we have someone reliably quoted as calling Glick specifically a racist, that may be worth adding to the article.
4. Because this is a BLP, and because the burden is on the editors adding information to back that information up with reliable sources. Shimeru 19:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On "double standards"

I have watched the article and read through the above discussions and would offer some observations: Note that recently, Arab-American journalist Helen Thomas caused offense with widely-reported remarks made in reference to I-P issues. Soon afterward, allegations of racism got pushed up in the lead and took, at 713 words, the largest section in her Wikipedia article. Days later, when this Israeli-American journalist, Caroline Glick, caused offense with a widely-viewed video made in reference to I-P issues, a 271 word section on allegations of racism appeared in this article -- only to be aggressively opposed. Arguments have been varied, the sort of scattershot approach to killing content usually employed when the real reason for opposition is "I don't like it." Moreover, the adding editor was brought to AN/I for investigation and the locking admin's abilities questioned, c'mon.

Anyway, editing on the articles of the Arab-American journalist and the Israeli-American journalist has been conducted with "stupendously" different standards. Suggest a section covering the We Con the World controversy in some detail, maybe renaming it -- not "allegations of racism", but something like "We Con the World controversy"? Not sure about other anti-Arab allegations, maybe with inline citations? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. But for what it's worth, I agree -- that section on the Helen Thomas article looks like undue weight. I've said as much on the talk page. Shimeru 08:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sirs / Madams, I agree with others above that whatever claims or allegations of 'racism' directed toward CG (although her satirical works do not fall under the technical definition of racism) has been amply and rather expertly incorporated within the article:

"In 2010, Glick appeared in We Con the World, a satirical video by Latma TV about the Gaza flotilla attempt to breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Some journalists such as Eileen Read in the Huffington Post have criticized the video; Reed writes that the parody "poke[s] fun at them in a tasteless and blatantly racist way" and calls for Glick to "be fired for making fun of the dead." "

I heartily applaud those that can see the above as a valid middle ground, incorporating this information as it does in a manner commensurate with its relative worth. Sagi Nahor (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hello all. Let me first make clear that this drive-by me was by invitation of an editor (Roma) w/whom I may have had differing views on the Helen Thomas talk page. A couple of thoughts.

First of all -- a pet peeve -- WP:OTHERSTUFF does not say that other stuff cannot be referred to. I'm troubled by the number of times the guideline is referenced as though all that has been read is the title to it. (Doubly troubled when it is one of my experienced colleagues doing so; it's an easy mistake, of course, for a newbie to make).

As to the reference to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I suggest all who seek to quote it read it. It says (emphasis added):

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

Roma was doing precisely what the guideline deems appropriate. It's not the first time I've seen an editor trot out that guideline as though they've by now forgotten all but its title -- as with a few other guidelines, such as "oneevent", that leads to (as here) mis-use of guidelines.

I'm not expert on the underlying RS coverage here. But, my view is that we should roughly approximate the RS coverage. So, if this is widely covered in RSs, it deserves appropriate coverage here. If not, not. I note one difference w/the Helen Thomas case -- Helen (whom I was a fan of for years, if POV is of interest) abruptly resigned from her decades-long gender-ceiling-career directly after reactions to her comment. And Obama, and others whose names are familiar, took part in commenting on her comments. From reading the article, its not clear to me that these comments have had the RS coverage, impact on a highly notable career, or attracted Obama-level comments. If I'm missing something, and they have, then of course they should be widely reported/reflected in the article. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by Epeefleche, and for your reasoned comments. Agree with what you wrote on OTHERSTUFF and would add it is mainly about article deletion discussions, not content discussions.

As I mentioned on the Thomas page, here are two female journalists whose recent inflammatory actions caused controversy. At Thomas' article we see words like "outrageous, anti-Semitic, racist, sick" and so on. These are rightly supported with inline citations. Yet attempts to add similarly-cited negative responses to Glick's video, or even quote the contents of the video, have been aggressively opposed here. Yes, mainstream US media has generated a higher volume of coverage on Thomas' "Israel out of Palestine" comments and subsequent resignation, but the Glick video and subsequent controversy was also widely covered. Nobody is suggesting this go into the lead or take 700+ words (as with the controversy at Thomas' article), an editor's suggestion here has been for a much-smaller section. I think the section title should be something like "Allegations of anti-Arabism" or "Gaza flotilla video controversy", add some lyrics (to illustrate what pissed some off), and a concise survey of (inline-cited) criticism of Glick in this regard. (ADD: I'm also ok with just "Controversy" as a section title as below) Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the parallels that are being drawn or suggested here. Humor is deliberately ironic; the video was satirical. Thomas's remarks were sincerely nasty. Big difference. Consequently, the Thomas article is a poor model for how to handle the criticism of Glick. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, many have taken offense at Glick's video, the Israeli gov't apologized for it, You Tube pulled it, and commentators commented on it. And yes, many took offense at Thomas' remarks -- but we don't whitewash one journalist and tar the other based on subjective ideas about what's "humor" and what's "nasty". RomaC (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations of racism" section

Hi, Caroline Glick's work has been criticized as racist by several writers who have gone on record. They have not merely called the video she produced "offensive" (which is how the current wikipedia entry at the time of this writing characterizes the allegations of Ms. Glick's racism).

So that the work of wikipedia editors is not sent down the memory hole, I've seen fit to document it below in case other editors in future wish to restore it or make other use of it (despite the efforts of some to purge it under varied, spurious pretexts, invariably raised along with the call to "achieve consensus" before the silenced work can be restored):

Glick has come under fire for her allegedly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim parody, "We Con the World," which satirizes the Gaza flotilla's attempt to defy the Israeli sea blockade of Gaza. Among the characters portrayed in the parody are men with beards and Arab headwear, with Arabic accents declaiming "As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand" and "If Islam and terror brighten up your mood," among other expressions. Eileen Read wrote in the Huffington Post that the parody "is lower than I've ever seen someone go who carries a management title at a journalism organization. I'm ashamed to say that Glick and I are both Columbia alums. Even if she hates people of another race or religion and is allowed by her editors to poke fun at them in a tasteless and blatantly racist way, she should be fired for making fun of the dead." Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport has alleged that the Glick-edited video demonstrated prejudice against Muslims, saying that the clip is "roughly done, not very sophisticated, anti-Muslim."

In a Salon.com article about those who backed the video's production, Alex Pereene asks whether they "might try not being proudly violent racist nutcases who seem to cheer the death of their enemies and occasionally support the complete elimination of Arabs". Paul J. Balles has criticized Caroline Glick for what he calls an insidious strain of anti-Arab bigotry in her work.69.110.29.179 (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Allegations of racism

Glick has come under fire for her allegedly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim parody, "We Con the World," which satirizes the Gaza flotilla attempt to defy the Israeli sea blockade of Gaza. Among the characters portrayed in the parody are men with beards and Arab headwear, with Arabic accents declaiming "As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand" and "If Islam and terror brighten up your mood," among other expressions. Eileen Read wrote in the Huffington Post that the parody "is lower than I've ever seen someone go who carries a management title at a journalism organization. I'm ashamed to say that Glick and I are both Columbia alums. Even if she hates people of another race or religion and is allowed by her editors to poke fun at them in a tasteless and blatantly racist way, she should be fired for making fun of the dead." Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport has alleged that the Glick-edited video demonstrated prejudice against Muslims, saying that the clip is "roughly done, not very sophisticated, anti-Muslim."

In a Slate.com article about those who backed the video's production, Alex Pereene asks whether they "might try not being proudly violent racist nutcases who seem to cheer the death of their enemies and occasionally support the complete elimination of Arabs". Paul J. Balles has criticized Caroline Glick for what he calls an insidious strain of anti-Arab bigotry in her work.

Maybe we could we re-title this "Allegations of Anti-Arabism" or "Flotilla video controversy" or something like that. RomaC (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

N.B.--At Helen Thomas, we title the section Controversy. Which I think works just fine. I imagine the same title might well work here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and trimming the quotes. RomaC (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Suggested rewrite:

In 2010, Glick co-produced and appeared in We Con the World, a video satirizing the Gaza flotilla attempt to breach the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, featuring actors with Arab accents, declaiming "There's no people dying", "As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand" and "Islam and terror brighten up your mood." The Israeli government apologized for sending the video out in a press package, and You Tube removed it, citing copyright infringement.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Eileen Read said the video "poke[s] fun at (flotilla raid victims) in a tasteless and blatantly racist way" and called for Glick to "be fired for making fun of the dead." Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport said the video was "anti-Muslim." In a Slate.com article, Alex Pereene said the production was informed by "racist nutcases who seem to cheer the death of their enemies and occasionally support the complete elimination of Arabs". Responded Glick, "The point of satire is to make people uncomfortable. We’re not trying to be fair and balanced, we’re trying to make a point."

This is now 178 words, includes inline citations on all criticism, and includes Glick's defense in her own words. RomaC (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding this RomaC (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Shimeru 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It has just been reverted twice by Jiujitsuguy, who set upon it without Talk participation. Warned the editor that one more reversion would violate 3RR and moments later Brewcrewer surprisingly arrived to continue reverting. This whitewash version removes all content information and critical perspectives of the video while expanding Glick's own explanations of it -- she is, after all, the Most Prominent Woman in Israel :) RomaC (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Geert Wilders

Jiujitsuguy significantly altered the meaning of the single sentence that I added to this article. I don't even see a reason given for the change. Please read the "Views on Islam" section of Geert Wilders (which I have not been involved in). I think it is clear that Mr. Wilders views go significantly further than "opposition to Islamic extremism"(Jiujitsuguy's edit).

Regarding my original post: Glick has repeatedly voiced support in her columns for Dutch politician Geert Wilders, best known for his controversial condemnations of the Islamic religion and calls for the expulsion of Muslim immigrants.

Has Mr. Wilders condemned the Islamic religion? I think that's clear. Are those statements controversial? I believe that would be hard to dispute. Has Mr. Wilders called for the expulsion of Muslim immigrants? Again, that's in the article on Mr. Wilders. My point was that Caroline Glick has repeatedly expressed support for someone considered to have extreme positions. Therefore I believe that Ms. Glick's vocal support for Mr. Wilders gives insight into her views, and is relevant to someone whose job is opinion columnist. I tried to be careful to make my original post neutral and supported by established information from the related Wikipedia page. I believe Jiujitsuguy's alteration is an inaccurate understatement of Mr. Wilders views and Ms. Glick's support for them. It seems like the entire page is locked at the moment, but I ask that my original text be restored, as I believe it meets Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddaanniieell (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Yes, there is supposed to be consensus for such editing, as JJG knows. Also the admin above suggests expanding not truncating the note on the We Con Controversy, editors should follow what's happening on Talk. RomaC (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review BLP guidelines Roma--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I did check, following your suggestion. Here's a link for others: WP:BLP. It says: "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." There is an inline citation, so looks like it's fine. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, I see that you altered what I wrote again almost immediately after it was reverted. I see a comment this time on the history page, but it's also connected to an edit of a separate section of the article so I'm not sure what reason you're advancing for changing the text, especially without any consensus. Ms. Glick is an opinion columnist. In her published columns, she has repeatedly expressed support for Mr. Wilders. This seems like a relevant bit of information to include in a biography. Many people have expressed "opposition to Islamic extremism"(JJG's edit). However, Mr. Wilders has often stated views that go far beyond that, as demonstrated on his Wikipedia page. JJG, what are your reasons for altering what I wrote twice, and why have you just gone ahead and done it without explaining exactly why on the Talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddaanniieell (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ddaanniieell, JJG has again reverted the Wilders content without discussion on Talk, with the edit summary "Wilders does not call for expulsion of all Muslims from Holland . . .This is a fabrication and violates ... (etc.)" Can you provide a source here for expulsion of Muslims (does not need to be "all" Muslims, JJG don't move the goalposts). This is if you think the content belongs. I reverted another or JJG's concurrent content removals (the description and inline-cited criticisms of her video mocking the Gaza Freedom Flotilla). I don't want to revert his other edit, can you check and source if you do? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure where the word "all" came from - I certainly never used it. Mr. Wilders has called for Muslim immigrants to be paid to leave the Netherlands, that's in his Wikipedia page. Here, Mr. Wilders also states that Muslim Dutch citizens convicted of a crime should be stripped of their nationality and deported. Not something that would apply to anyone of any other religion, apparently. So if "expulsion" isn't precise enough, how about "calls for millions of Muslims to leave the Netherlands"? "Millions" is mentioned in the article linked above, which would need to be cited. As for the rest of the alterations JJG has made without discussing it with anyone: What is the problem with "controversial"? I think it is undeniable that Mr. Wilders statements have caused controversy, whether you support them or not. The other part JJG has repeatedly changed without explanation is "condemnations of the Islamic religion". Again, read his Wikipedia page. Saying "I hate Islam" and calling the Koran a "fascist book" are condemnations of the religion, are they not? I think summarizing Mr. Wilders views as "opposition to Islamic extremism" is a grossly inaccurate understatement that does not match up with the documented quotes. Ddaanniieell (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just changed "condemnations of the Islamic fundamentalism", which isn't even grammatically correct, back to "the Islamic religion". I think this is clearly borne out by Mr. Wilders' Wikipedia page. If anyone thinks it should be altered, please discuss it here rather than just changing it without saying anything.Ddaanniieell (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.22.167 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Two points about the allegations that Glick is a racist

First, please understand that the allegations are that Glick is a racist, and that her work is racist. The allegations are not merely that her attempted parody is racist. Please consult the allegations to verify (e.g. Eileen Read notes that she never reads Glick columns because they justify occupation of Palestinians, etc.) I see no reason to retreat from documenting what others are alleging to make this more innocuous by referring only to her attempted parody.

Second, why the discomfort with use of word "racism"? This is not "anti-Arabism" (Arabism has a range of meanings that have nothing whatever to do with this), although it could be called "anti-Arab." Again, I don't see why or how there can be any controversy in simply documenting what others are alleging. No wikipedia editor is alleging racism himself or herself, and we are not to impose our own value judgments about what those alleging racism may have (or should have) meant. This is unwarranted.

The header "controversy" is fine, but under such a header it should be clear that the allegations are that Glick is racist (and not shifting the focus to her parody, and not to make the charge more innocuous by calling the allegation that Glick is "offensive," or something like that).

I'm beginning to become suspicious that there is a generalized fear of using the word "racism" to document what others have in no ambiguous terms alleged to be anti-Arab racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.29.179 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this does not seem to be the case. Eileen Read doesn't refer to Glick as racist, only to the "racist video." The Salon article also doesn't refer to Glick, but to various named financial backers of the video, including Gaffney, Kadish, and Zabludowicz. Rapoport also said the video was anti-Muslim. And the supposed Rosenberg quote isn't, in fact, Rosenberg (see below). We can't call Glick a racist without very solid sources, and "she talks about continuing the occupation of Palestine" doesn't cut it, particularly coming from a writer with a pro-Palestinian POV. Shimeru 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree her video is where the criticism is directed, we can cite inline the reactions to it but we certainly can't present as "fact" that Glick is racist -- that would violate Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. However, the (short) section on the video did cite inline and specify the allegedly racist and anti-Muslim video, and it has been whitewashed just now DIff, I reverted but the editor has begun to edit war with a quick second much-of section-blanking. I hope neutral editors will get involved. RomaC (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Another writer goes on record calling Caroline Glick a racist

M.J. Rosenberg has joined Eileen Read, Meron Rapoport, Alex Pereene, and Paul J. Balles in calling out Caroline Glick. M.J. Rosenberg describes Glick as follows:

“She’s like a white supremacist in Alabama in 1959 who only became somebody by virtue of his white skin."

Who is M.J. Rosenberg?

M.J. Rosenberg is the former Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum (IPF). He has spent eighteen years within the United States government, fourteen on Capitol Hill as an aide to Representatives Jonathan Bingham (D-New York), Edward Feighan (D-Ohio) and Nita Lowey (D-New York) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan). Immediately prior to coming to IPF, he was a political appointee to USAID, where he served as Chief of Staff for Thomas Dine, the head of the Eastern Europe/NIS Bureau of USAID. From 1982 to 1986, MJ was editor of Near East Report, the American Israel Public Affair Committee's (AIPAC's) biweekly publication on Middle East Policy. 69.110.29.179 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a misquote. A web search shows the comment comes from a response to Rosenberg's review of Budrus at this article. This is the direct link to the comment. Rosenberg wrote only the headline and first paragraph; everything from "Man, this stuff..." is not Rosenberg but the commenter. Definitely not a reliable source. Shimeru 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Checked the source and agree with Shimeru, RomaC (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Life section

This section lacks sources and reads like a résumé. tagging as such. RomaC (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Remarks

I could not find any sources for the quotes and have removed them. I did find a few places on the internet laughing at them and pointing to Wikipedia. Anyone have the source? Also, such a section might be better at Wikiquote (can be linked at the bottom of the page). I was about to start it based on a few quotes I saw in papers and stuff like this but am not sure if there are enough to make it worth the effort.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Glick has remarked that "one of the greatest problems for international journalists covering the Middle East is that people who serve as guides for journalists are often affiliated with Islamic terrorists seeking to turn foreign visitors against Israel. They bring journalists to staged scenes that paint a false, overly optimistic picture of Arab life."

• "Also, civilians are sometimes willing to give their true opinion if a reporter will allow them to remain anonymous," Glick says, "but using anonymous sources opens a reporter to charges of fabrication."

• "The people often cannot tell you what they think of things because they can be physically punished," Glick said. "This is not just an Israeli problem. This is a problem for reporters in any place that is not free. "

The source used to be in the article, but was removed somewhere along the lines. It's from an article by Eric Martin in the Inside Medill News, April 20, 2004. The original online link seems to have gone dead, but this is an archive of the article. Shimeru 03:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We can put it back in if people want. I still think a Wikiquote page and link would be better but that might just be me.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure it's appropriate. I'd be happier if it could be incorporated into the main body of the article. Having a separate section for remarks made in one interview is no better than having a separate section for responses to one video. Shimeru 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I started a Wikiquote page anyways. Not sure if it is perfect but it is a start. Integrating stuff into the text would still be cool. I found a few hings today while searching for sources that could expand it but a not sure.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work with the referencing, by the way. The article's in much better shape now than it was when I first happened across it. Shimeru 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I appreciate it, Shimeru. I kind of felt dumb after mentioning I didn't see a source for the quotes and they ended up being in one of the new sources!Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancillary IDF issue involving actions and statements not taken or made by Glick have no bearing on Glick's bio. Excessive emphasis on marginal freelance writer/blogger, that no one has heard of, with outrageous claims of racism present WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP issues. Moreover, Glick's comments on the vid have been shortened while the criticism of her has been expanded and lengthened. A clear WP:POV push by a single editor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1) JJG, this is not the Talk section where the content and refs you removed are being discussed; 2) The inline-cited criticism is of Glick's video not of Glick this is fine in reference to the controversy; 3) "nobody has heard of" is not a good edit summary; 4) Your drive-by blanking indicates a battleground approach that is not constructive. Also, you are once again one revert away from violating WP:3RR Discuss properly if you mean to participate please. RomaC (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we are also discussing quotes, I think quotes by her should be included in the related prose if possible. A whole section on quotes just seemed off (I feel the same way about the "Articles" section as well since she has too many to fit into a "Works" section.

Her response to the bad press are certainly appropriate. And even going as far as saying "criticism included accusations of..." should be OK from her criticts. Please keep in mind that there is a guideline somewhere (don't remember which one) that warns against using inflammatory quotes to include nonneuteral wording when paraphrasing would be better. Anyone know what I am talking about?Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This? Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops

RE: Quotes. While her direct quotes are a good way to give a reader insight into Glick and her impact, any quotes really need to come from a discussion /interpretation/analysis by neutral third parties discussing her quotes and the impact, otherwise we are venturing into WP:OR / WP:SYN Active Banana (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It is much strongly worded. Something like "don't use quotes when it is POV since paraphrasing would be better". It would basically be "she is a disgusting racist who sucks" NO. "critics said she was racist" instead. I'll try to find it.Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it! " Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." WP:QUOTE. That is only an essay though so instead see: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."WP:NPOV. I'm using quotes. Is that irony or does my use of them have to be POV to truly make it so?Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

The discussions here are split under several headings but there is clear consensus from participating editors and an uninvolved admin to include information on and reaction to the Glick video. Have edited the section to reflect this. RomaC (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The only consensus you have is from your good friend Razorback (boy you certainly know how to pick em) and his socking IP buddies--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No my friend. An IP editor had added a very long section alleging a history of racism, looking to address problems with that I made a much shorter version focusing specifically on reactions to her WCTW video. Editors' comments such as "a valid middle ground" and "Looks good to me" followed, so I put the new shorter criticism info in with inline citations per WP:BLP. This you then edit-warred with your "good friends".

Glick's video triggered an apology from the Israelis, YouTube pulled it, and it was called "Anti-Muslim", "blatently racist" and "highly offensive" in various RS. You removed all that and pushed a version with Glick herself dismissing criticism which does not even appear in the article. Can you explain how you think this improves the article? RomaC (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can editors please look through the discussion on this page before removing content and sources. Inclusion of the We Con the World controversy and reaction was supported by several editors and an uninvolved admin, now we just have one perspective: Glick's. That's just not right. RomaC (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There you go again, twisting the facts to suit a convoluted POV. The video never "triggered an apology from the Israelis." The IDF press unit issued an apology for mishandling it. That's it. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. And even if the press unit issued an apology, what bearing does that have on Glick's accomplishments or bio? The handling or mishandling of the video by a third party has nothing to do with Glick or her achievements. Yes, YouTube pulled it and I re-inserted that aspect back in. My concern with that aspect was fear of a slippery slope. You would then have to counter with "Fair Use" doctrines and the fact that others have alleged that its removal had nothing to do with copyright infringement and everything to do with politics and that would be off topic and would violate UNDUE. As far as consensus, your don't have it and never did and your representations to the contrary are nothing short of disingenuous. I along with Cptnono and Brewerscrewer and to a lesser extent Epeefleche voiced concern with the edit. Users Hertz1888 and AMuseo had also viewed the undue emphasis on racism with concern. Then you have the cheese to refer to fellow editors as “driveby” and to their respective edits as “section blanking.” Grow up!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As suggested above, the quotes from critics in a heated issue present rhetoric that is inflammatory and should be replaced with something more neuteral. Weight is also a factor. Although I agree that the balancing was needed, weight goes both ways and this is a BLP. Figure out a way to paraphrase it? I already mentioned that. I reported you for edit warring as well since this is a BLP and edit warring can take place regardless of not breaching 3rr. Also wasn't a good idea considering this recently came off a lock and discussion was ongoing.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cptnono. Ancillary issue involving actions of the IDF in mishandling Glick's video have no bearing on her bio and is nothing but a red herring. Citing quotes frrom marginal bloggers/freelancers with outrageous claims of racism is inappropriate. We're deal with WP:BLP issues as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT issues. There is no consensus for this WP:POV edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd initially reduced to Reed's quote, as calling for Glick's firing seemed to have the most obvious personal importance to Glick, whereas the other quotes were more confined to the video (or in the case of Salon.com, to its financial backers). If people feel that's an unreliable source, I'm okay with that. I would think Rapoport's quote from the Guardian would be considered reliable, though. That's no marginal source, it's one of the biggest English-language newspapers (and highest-traffic news websites) in the world. We shouldn't go overboard in making the criticism section dominate the article, but we shouldn't cut out all coverage of it, either. Shimeru 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to take a crack at it or would you rather I have a go, your choice.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Shimeru 03:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll incorporate your suggestions tomorrow after I get some much needed sleep.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think this should suffice--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks all right, I suppose. The non-video-related parts of the article could really stand more work, but I haven't turned up any good, solid references to use aside from what's already in there. (Haven't exactly spent a whole lot of time looking, either, though.) Might give it a copyediting pass later this month, since I'm focusing on copyedits anyway during July. Shimeru 09:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section is ridiculous.

How exactly is it relevant what two obscure journalists have said about Caroline Glick? Eileen Read and Meron Rapoport are two individuals that virtually nobody has ever heard of, and their opinions are completely irrelevant. The fact that they may have written an article for The Guardian or Huffington Post does not at legitimacy to this useless addition to the "criticism//controvery" section. What is clearly being done is an attempt to paint Caroline Glick as a racist, which is absolutely untrue, because some nobody has said so.

- media follower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.110.220 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Positions ?

If she's such an influential columnist, it would be useful to set out what her signature positions are, that particularly characterise her work (as we do for other columnists).

For example, what is her line on the two state solution? On settlement in the West Bank? On Mahmoud Abbas? On Yisrael Beitenu and Avigdor Lieberman? On Shas and the religious parties?

In her book The Israeli Solution:A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Glick criticizes the conventional wisdom that the two state solution is essential and argues in favour of the imposition of Israeli law on Judea and Samaria citing Menachem Begin’s decision to impose Israeli law on the Golan Heights. She still makes it clear that thanks to Ariel Sharon it is impossible for her proposed solution to include Gaza. I hope this helps. Thank you.

This is what seems to be most missing from the article. Jheald (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caroline Glick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080825000816/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/print/?q=NGI4MmY4MmMyYzY1MDhiNTEzMmRmM2ViYmI5OTFkZjM= to http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NGI4MmY4MmMyYzY1MDhiNTEzMmRmM2ViYmI5OTFkZjM=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/38244
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721200831/https://www.5tjt.com/featured-news/4840-caroline-glick-receives-guardian-of-zion-award.html to https://www.5tjt.com/featured-news/4840-caroline-glick-receives-guardian-of-zion-award.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)