"

 A response to ""For the attention of the IPs inserting the 'racism section'"" 

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 writersEileen Read, Alex Pareene, and Paul J. Balleshave 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  "