Talk:Harry's Place: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:34, 21 December 2006

Latest revision as of 12:40, 16 November 2024

(93 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=

{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Blogging |importance=Low}}

}}

{{controversial}}

{{TrollWarning}}

{{oldafdfull|date= [[10 December]] [[2006]] |result= '''keep''' |votepage= Harry's Place (3rd nomination) }}

{{archives|auto=long}}

{{Maintained|{{User:Peter G Werner/maintenance}}}}

== academics critical of Israel such as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Shlomo Sand ==

==Article recreated==

LMAO. They are not 'academics'. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.240.253.184|89.240.253.184]] ([[User talk:89.240.253.184#top|talk]]) 14:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This page was deleted in November 2005 based upon an AfD consensus that Harry's Place was a non-notable blog.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry%27s_Place] The page was recreated, and on Feb 24, 2006 unilaterally deleted by [[User:Marudubshinki|Marudubshinki]] based on the still-standing AfD consensus.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Harry%27s_Place]

== Recent edits ==

It is my belief that the initial consensus on the non-notability of this site was in error. The site gets over 100,000 visits daily [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00027KS80/102-4158551-4584128?v=glance&vi=traffic&url=http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net]. A Google search (excluding the site itself and wikipedia) returns 461 unique pages [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22harry%27s+place%22+blog+-wikipedia+-site%3Ahurryupharry.bloghouse.net+-site%3Ahurryupharry.blogspot.com&btnG=Search]. It has also been nominated for several UK and European weblog awards.[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/redbox/page/0,9030,1135418,00.html] [http://weblogawards.org/2005/12/best_uk_blog.php] I believe that Harry's Place is a significant blog and a significant forum of the "pro-war left" political tendency.

Could someone with more knowledge take a look at the recent edits by an IP editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry%27s_Place&diff=289060898&oldid=288465933 diff]. They look grossly POV, but I don't know enough about the subject to know what to do. Thanks, [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I therefore request that this page not be deleted without another vote. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The site regularly supports the position that the LGBT community in the UK has been let down by the left, including the Labour party, in that the left promotes communalist identity politics among groups who express hatred towards LGBT people, at the expense of the civil and human liberties of LGBT people. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.68.94.86|82.68.94.86]] ([[User talk:82.68.94.86|talk]]) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I endorse that. I will be adding press mentions which demonstrate that this page easily meets the guideline of [[WP:WEB]]. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 20:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

== Lack of objectivity on the page ==

::*'''Comment''' You have misread the traffic information [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=hurryupharry.bloghouse.net]. A traffic rank of 103,000 does not mean 100,000 visits. It means there are over 100,000 sites more popular. In Alexa rankings, a high number is a bad thing, and 100,000 is awful. Check out this comparison with [[Daily Kos]], which has a traffic rank in the 1600's: [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=www.dailykos.com&y=t&q=&size=medium&range=6m&url=hurryupharry.bloghouse.net]. No comparison. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:::OK, I've noted that and agree with the removal of this info from the page itself. I still think the blog is notable based on its press mentions and the frequency with which its cited (positively and negatively) in other blogs. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Harrys Place is a race-hate website which targets a) Muslims and b) Jews opposed to Israel. If it is to remain on wikipedia the authors should accept that many find it deeply offensive. If they cannot accept points of view that differ from their own, the wiki page should be deleted.

==Speedy Deletion tag==

I have stated above my reasons for restoring this article and am asking that this page go up for deletion review. I believe that Harry's Place is a notable political blog and that if it went up for AfD today, there would not be a consensus to delete. I also think that the "speedy deleters" are simply trying to bypass this process and therefore exercising bad faith. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:I have put this page up for Deletion review [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Harry.27s_Place_Speedy_Deletion|here]]. I am asking that this page not be deleted until Deletion review has been completed, and a finding supporting the continuing deletion of this page has been reached. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not the first to make this point and I shan't be the last. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HugoZHackenbusch|HugoZHackenbusch]] ([[User talk:HugoZHackenbusch|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HugoZHackenbusch|contribs]]) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: The consensus at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Harry.27s_Place_Speedy_Deletion|Deletion review]] was that this page is not a candidate for speedy deletion and if anybody wants to delete the page, they should put it up for an AfD. I'm not going to be the one to nominate it for an AfD, but I'd be amenable to one if it happened - if it resulted in a genuine consensus to delete, I won't carry the argument any further. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:Mr Hackenbush, My suggestion to you on your talk page, was to DISCUSS your edits here, not to simply post a declaration of your position, and resume editing. A discussion consists of multiple people, each making thier own point of view clear, not a single statement by one person pushing his own agenda. [[User:Wuhwuzdat|Wuhwuzdat]] ([[User talk:Wuhwuzdat|talk]]) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

==88.101.187.61 comments==

It is a disgrace that this page keeps reappearing.

Mr Wuhwurzdat: I added to the article. What is the point in discussing my changes if they are just going to be deleted? I left 90% of the original content. I must insist: you are allowing the authors to promote a race-hate website that is deeply offensive towards muslims and is vindictive towards Jews who do not support Israel.

It is obvious that it does so as a result of the personal political agenda of the user called Dbiv. He is in bed with the site owners of Harry's Place and this represents a huge conflict of interest.

If you wish I can supply examples of the race-hate commentary from Harrys Place, but maybe you should check it out for yourself.

Harry's Place is a hate site that masquerades as a political blog and it does nothing but spread anti muslim hate.

There may be a case here to send a complaint to the Race Relations Board. I believe in free speech, but not in shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. These people are deliberately trying to damage community relations in the United Kingdom. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HugoZHackenbusch|HugoZHackenbusch]] ([[User talk:HugoZHackenbusch|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HugoZHackenbusch|contribs]]) 21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The entry here has been rightly deleted before yet the same people keep resurrecting it.

:I would strongly recommend reading [[WP:NPOV]], Wikipedia's policy towards maintaining a '''NEUTRAL Point Of View'''. [[User:Wuhwuzdat|Wuhwuzdat]] ([[User talk:Wuhwuzdat|talk]]) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is shameful that users like Dbiv should be allowed to push filth like this into a so called encyclopedia.

::The changes you made are deliberately trying to pass a negative light on the articles subject, and you may have a certain conflict of interest with the articles subject. Here at Wikipedia, one of our core policies is to have a neutral point of view. We deliver the information that is relevant and let the reader make up their own mind instead of telling them what to think. Your changes are being reverted because they are controversial and yet you haven't explained or substantiated them here. If you are willing to put up why you believe your changes should be made, and are willing to substantiate them, then we may be able to rework them as a community, come to a consensus, and make them. Engaging in an edit war with the people who are reverting you will just end up in you being banned for a short time or the article being locked from editing until a consensus can be made. Please keep this in mind as I do not want to see anyone blocked. [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to start questioning why Dbiv has such an interest in an obscure web site?

:Excuse me, but taking up this article with a ''Race Relations Board''??? I don't know what kind of authority you consider British censors to have over Wikipedia content, but I assure you the policy here is "[[WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]". [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] ([[User talk:Peter G Werner|talk]]) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Dbiv?

More to the point, the Race Relations Board ceased to exist in 1976. I wish Mr Hackenbush luck in reporting his baseless complaints to a non-existent entity.

: Mr Wuhwurzdat, OK I am going to try to post changes one at a time. If you object to them, you will need to explain why.

The site has low traffic and has a reputation for spreading anti muslim hate propaganda. So why do you keep bring this page back to life?

We'll start with "pro-liberation left". This is meaningless. It is a category that does not exist, and the article it links to has a different title, namely "Pro-War Left". So how can you possibly object to this change? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HugoZHackenbusch|HugoZHackenbusch]] ([[User talk:HugoZHackenbusch|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HugoZHackenbusch|contribs]]) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

What is your political agenda in supporting this foul site? {{unsigned|88.101.187.61|12:04, 27 April 2006}}

:Mr Wuhwurzdat, I will now add the following refernce to the articles attacking antizionist Jews. I am perfectly prepared to back this up with citations from individual articles on the weblog:

The blog frequently attacks anti-Zionist Jews (or rather, people of Jewish descent) such as [[Gilad Atzmon]], [[Keith Burstein]] and [[Alexei Sayle]] and in particular Jewish academics who criticize Israel such as [[Norman Finkelstein]], [[Noam Chomsky]] and [[Schlomo Sand]]. In May 2009 it celebrated the financial ruin of the British composer, Keith Burstein. <ref>[http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/05/11/the-tragic-case-of-keith-burstein/ The Tragic Case of Keith Burstein, 11 May 2009]</ref> <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HugoZHackenbusch|HugoZHackenbusch]] ([[User talk:HugoZHackenbusch|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HugoZHackenbusch|contribs]]) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Mr Wuhwurzdat. OK have added the above, with a whole bunch of citations. Thanks in advance for treating this update and my patience with respect. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HugoZHackenbusch|HugoZHackenbusch]] ([[User talk:HugoZHackenbusch|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HugoZHackenbusch|contribs]]) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Actually, the problem is more that if you point out on HP too insistently that 'Islamophobia' is a nonsense concept, and in particular that the so-called 'persecution' of Moslems in the UK is not really on a par with that of Jews in 1930s Germany, you fall out of favour big-time with the owners. And if you criticise Obama, you can end up expelled. Oddly enough, there are some antisemitic posters who don't seem to get expelled. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.68.94.86|82.68.94.86]] ([[User talk:82.68.94.86|talk]]) 13:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

HP staff are regularly abusive to posters they disagree with, especially Alan A. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.68.94.86|82.68.94.86]] ([[User talk:82.68.94.86|talk]]) 11:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Latest bunch of edits... ==

:Please read [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. I did not create the article in its present form, [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] did, without any prompting from me. If you don't think it meets notability requirements, then put it on Articles for deletion, but I believe it manifestly does. If you don't like the politics of Harry's Place then that's your prerogative - but it's not a reason for deleting the article. I don't much care for [[Adolf Hitler]]'s politics but he's definitely notable enough for an article. For what it's worth, I do know one of the people who blogs at Harry's Place, but I haven't contributed to it myself. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, just a quick explanation on my latest reverts as I have no doubt this "new" poster will kick up a fuss again:

::Ditto to what Dbiv said - just because you don't like the site is no reason to have it expunged from Wikipedia. Talk about "conflict of interest"! The only criterion should be whether its notable or not, and so far, you've only asserted that. The references I've given in the article state otherwise. If you disagree, then create an AfD - the standing AfD has good grounds for being challenged, and has been agreed to by the folks at Deletion Review. Creating a speedy deletion tag, and anonymously on top of it, is just attempting an end run around the much-needed discussion that needs to take place before deleting this article from Wikipedia. If you have such a strong case for deletion, 83, then what do you have to fear from the AfD process? For my part, if given current arguments about the site's notability, there's still a '''consensus''' for deletion, I won't go and recreate the article.

* the 2-million figure is 1) off-topic and 2) the figure given by the organisers, the StWC. As everyone knows, protest figures given by organisers or the police are to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. There is no reliable figure.

* on Israel/Palestine, the bit about opposing return of refugees was unsourced and used highly emotional language ("ancestral lands" etc...). Please source any such opinion and use neutral language. While I was at it I removed an equally faulty bit which I'm guessing is a remain from an earlier edit war.

* Copy-pasting criticism from grudge blogs such as Islamophobia Watch is not acceptable. Especially when their criticism is actually based on comments left on a post rather than the content of posts themselves, as was the case in the bit I removed. Frankly the whole section could go but I'm leaving some of it in given that the subject of the page is a blog in the first place.

* the Keith Burstein bit is minor trivia which has been added in purely in order to spin it. HP did not "celebrate" his ruin, it merely argued that he brought it on himself.

* Clearly Harry's Place defends Israel vehemently. Saying that it attacks "anti-Zionist Jews" specifically is pure spin. You could equally select other examples to say that it attacks anti-Zionist Americans, anti-Zionist Brits, anti-Zionist Iranians, anti-Zionist Venezuelans etc.... [[User:Mezigue|Mezigue]] ([[User talk:Mezigue|talk]]) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is in keeping with attacks on this page, which generally seem to come from people with very strong anti-"Islamophobia" sentiments, and unfortunately, very little in the way of regard for Wikipedia policy. SQuentinQuale seems to be no exception, injecting the article with blatantly biased language and engaging in edit warring when such edits aren't accepted. And adding inflammatory language like "Maybe he should go back to bulldozing Palestinian villages" to edit summaries. I've been away from this article for a awhile, but will try and keep an eye on it from here on out. If SQuentinQuale violates 3RR, I will definitely report this to the admins. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] ([[User talk:Peter G Werner|talk]]) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

::What's my interest? I'm a Harry's Place reader and sometimes contribute to the comments section, but I otherwise have no connection with the site. I'm also a signer of the Euston Manifesto, for what its worth. Keep in mind, however, that I've tried to create an NPOV article and have included criticisms commonly made about Harry's Place (and some of their responses to those criticisms). If you feel I've failed in that regard, that's fine - make some edits of your own, or slap it with an NPOV tag and suggestions for improvement.

==Disputed edit==

::I probably shouldn't respond to your characterization that Harry's Place is "foul" "anti-muslim hate propaganda", but I will. From my reading of the site, Harry's Place writers is not opposed to any ethnic group, but to a particular ''ideology'', in this case political fundamentalist Islam. To state that opposition to this ideology is some sort of anti-muslim "hate propaganda" is bad-faith criticism at best, and a call for blatant political censorship at worst. Its absolutely the reason I have always opposed "hate speech" laws - I can see the slippery slope from outlawing pure racial hatred to outlawing criticisms of religious and political ideas, something that's entirely corrosive to democracy itself. The position taken by yourself and the proprietors or Islamophobia Watch are the very fulfillment of the potential slippery slope I've always seen in the concept of "hate speech". All it takes is somebody to successfully assert "my religion is my race" or "my ideology is my race", and the concept of "hate speech" goes from punishing attacks on people to punishing attacks on ideas. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:and is a defender of [[Israel]]'s right to exist within safe and secure boundaries at the expense of the Palestinians, and denies the Palestinians' right of return to their ancestral land.

This was the edit SQuentinQuale was insisting on. The statement is balanced, but nevertheless contains biased language about "denies the Palestinians' right of return to their ancestral land". The Palestinan Right of Return being an inherently controversial topic which needs to be carefully phrased in order not to take sides. In any event, this statement needs to be properly referenced. I'm pretty sure that Harry's Place supports the right of Israel to exist within safe and secure boundaries, but where's the reference to a blog post or secondary reference. And as for the second part, has Harry's Place ever taken a stance on Palestinian Right of Return? They may have, but its not self-evident and hence definitely needs to be cited from a verifiable source. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] ([[User talk:Peter G Werner|talk]]) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

==Monkey boy007 comments==

This entry should be deleted. It is a hate blog, but that does not mean it would not deserve a mention. After all it could be mentioned as a hate blog. But it's non-noticable with only a small cultish following. Bigger sites with more traffic don't get a mention. It should be deleted as a small blog with no significance. {{unsigned|Monkey boy007|22:03, 21 May 2006}}

== Dropped content during the last round of edit wars ==

:I'm not sure I care all that much, but why has my comment from yesterday been deleted? In any event, it should be clear to any nonpartisan observer that the objections to this entry are universally political. Everyone who says that Harry's Place isn't relevant makes sure to mention that it is a "hate site" as well, so apparently Harry's has attracted their attention at least a bit.

OK, I'm looking at all the non-trivial changes that have been made to the article since the last pre-edit warring version, that of 13:10, 7 May 2009 by Mlevitt1. Here are few sections I see have been dropped and I'd like to discuss whether any of this content should go back in. (I have updated all links found in the citations – links are all now active and viewable.):

:I'm curious, personally, how these detractors define hate, and what evidence they can bring as to it's presence at the site in question. Could we have one example please? A small teensy one? Claiming that this is a hate site is a serious charge, and some proof should be given. {{unsigned|68.73.197.225|23:23, 22 May 2006}}

:'''I'''

::I'm not sure who removed your previous comments; I should have reverted this page when I saw they were removed, but I wasn't sure if it was a case of somebody withdrawing their own comments. Its helpful for readability and to keep track of who's responding to whom to properly indent responses and to sign your comments when you leave them. (Simply leaving a series of tildes, like so "~ ~ ~ ~" (but without spaces between the tildes or quotes around them), at the end of your comments is all that is needed to leave a signature.

:It is a prominent voice of what it calls "[[Pro-war Left|the pro-liberation left]]" (a group more disparagingly referred to as "[[liberal hawks]]").

:'''II'''

::I doubt you'll get any kind of response from Monkey Boy about his racism accusations – he's not exactly into reasoned discussion, as a quick look at [http://muscularliberalswatch.blogspot.com his blog] will attest. As for what is supposedly racist about the site, I think my comments above get to the real agenda of the folks that are denouncing Harry's Place as racist. Basically, anything which goes against the strongly pro-Islamist consensus on some sections of the far left is considered "racist". Accusations of racism are a favorite tool for radical left groups who otherwise lack political influence to win people over to their agenda. Especially in Europe, where there are laws against "hate speech" in many countries. If you can successfully tar the speech of your opponents as racist hate speech, you could actually have them censored or sue them in court. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 01:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:''Harry's Place'' has a love-hate relationship with ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper. Harry has noted that he is still a ''Guardian'' reader <ref name="littleatoms">[http://www.littleatoms.com/harry.htm ''Little Atoms'' interview with Harry] [[September 16]] [[2005]]. (Links to [[MP3]].)</ref> [...] ''Harry's Place'' was a frequent subject of satire in ''The Guardian's'' satirical "Norman Johnson" column.<ref name="normanj">Norman Johnson, "[http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,,1587748,00.html Free Radical: Don't pretend Harry's exit is just coincidence]", ''The Guardian'', [[October 8]] [[2005]], p. 9</ref> In April 2006, ''Harry's Place'' mirrored its site under the [[___domain name]] ''[http://www.grauniad.org Grauniad.org]'', an old nickname for ''The Guardian'' due to its [[The Guardian#The Guardian in the popular imagination|reputation for frequent typos and misspellings]].

:'''III'''

==88.101.187.61 comments 2==

:Harry was active in British [[anti-fascist]] and [[Marxist]] politics in the mid-to-late [[1980]]s, and in this period was also a member of the [[Straight Left]] faction of the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]]. The pseudonym "Harry Steel" had earlier been used by a different writer, Fergus Nicholson, and Harry changed this to "Harry Steele". It is claimed that he took the pseudonym "Harry Steele" as a tribute to [[Harry Pollitt]], former General Secretary of the CPGB, and the Soviet dictator [[Joseph Stalin]] (though Harry claims it was a "piss-take" and "not a homage to anyone").<ref>[http://www.hurryupharry.org/2005/03/28/alternatives-to-labour/ discussion of "Alternatives to Labour"], ''Harry's Place'', [[March 28]] [[2005]].</ref> Under this name he contributed to a number of far-left message boards and mailing lists, including "[[UK]] Left Network" and "The Politburo", a discussion board for [[United Kingdom|British]] Communists, the latter of which he set up.<ref>[http://www.network54.com/Forum/393207/message/1129042732/Simon+Evans-Harry+Steele+%26amp%3B+Straight+Left+forgetfulness "Former Communists" discussion, October 11 2005]</ref> In this period he became well-known among fellow contributors for his support for "orthodox" [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[History of the CPSU|Communism]] and his attacks on [[Trotskyists]], in particular the [[Socialist Workers Party (UK)|Socialist Workers Party]].

06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I note with interest that the "What Really Happened" blog entry is up for deletion.

:'''References'''

Why?

<references/>

I'll take these on one at a time.

Because it is accused of having an anti Israeli bias.

'''I''' is unreferenced and hence needs some kind of citation to be valid content. However, some kind of overall summary of the site's political leanings really needs to be included in the introductory paragraph. When I wrote this, I included the terms "pro-liberation left" and "liberal hawks" for balance, and also because they link to two different articles (which probably should be merged). If this isn't a good descriptor, then another one that is should be put in.

Harry's Place gets much less traffic than WRH but crucially has an anti islamic bias.

'''II''': I'm not sure why the stuff about the attitude about HP toward The Guardian was dropped, but it's referenced and I'm inclined to put it back in.

One entry gets attacked, another gets protected.

'''III''': Background material on Harry. I think this is really useful interesting information, but I also realize that the source for this information is an open discussion forum, hence, probably not meeting the criteria of [[WP:VERIFY]]. Still, I'm inclined to include this material insofar as any of it can be properly verified.

It is pretty obvious that wikipedia is being exploited for political purposes by Dbiv and Peter Werner. These guys are zionists.

Thoughts? [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] ([[User talk:Peter G Werner|talk]]) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the reason for the outrageous hypocrisy and double standards.

:* I am responsible for dropping some of this and some of it was removed by the recent problem poster in a sort of tit-for-tat logic. It is difficult to decide exactly what to put in an article about a blog as there can never be a single source and you have to make a synthetic judgement. My approach (but I am not gung-ho about this) is that the shorter the article is, the better. There are two reasons for this: one, Harry's Place is after all only a blog rather than a newspaper etc... and not that important in the big scheme of things, and two, it shortens the scope for edit wars. Articles about journalists generally avoid tagging them with a political leaning in the introductory sentence, and I think that's a sensible approach. Specifically, this pro-liberation, liberal hawk etc... classification is never going to be anything other than PoV (plus I notice editors have sneakily been changing the destination of links while keeping the words!) I think it is better to explain the main positions in a few nuanced sentences rather than condense it in a few words in the opening sentence. On the other hand, HP does seem to have a particularly high number of entries about the Israel/Palestine situation for a British blog and this could be mentioned.

Harry's Place is a hate site.

:* Regarding the relationship with the Guardian, this was not removed by me but I tend to agree with them that is seems pretty trivial, especially given that the blog has had a number of much more serious feuds with various parties. The Norman Johnson spoof column might be worth a mention, though, perhaps as a link or in a "see also" section.

:* Regarding the identity of Harry, I don't have a clue! No idea who he is but forum discussions are definitely not a serious source. The problem is I can't think of an alternative one. (For the record and contrary to allegations hurled in the "changes" page at all and sundry, I am not associated with Harry's Place in any way and my main concern on this page is to stop the PoV pushing.)

:* Regarding HP's position on Israel and Palestine, I have referenced the support for a two-state solution. I think the previous sentence on safe and secure borders etc... while probably accurate is a Wikipedia editor's words rather than the blog's and in any case this is pretty much encapsulated in the "two state" expression. Regarding right of return of Palestinians, I am actually not sure what their position is if they have one.

:* One thing probably worth a longer mention on the article is the moderation policy of Harry's Place (very little of it) as it probably accounts for the blog's controversial image. A lot of the perception of the blog as anti-Muslim comes from the comment pages. I'll try and expand this. [[User:Mezigue|Mezigue]] ([[User talk:Mezigue|talk]]) 09:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... the moderation policy under Gene is quite vicious. Posters get expelled if they disagree with Gene. Posters end up in a permanent moderation gulag if they disagree with Gene or Brownie. Posters get their posts deleted if they make factual statements about the EDL or criticise the more lunatic statements about the EDL being 'Nazis' or 'worse than PCS' or 'essentially the BNP' or 'anti-Muslim racists' [sic]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.14.17.50|92.14.17.50]] ([[User talk:92.14.17.50|talk]]) 19:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Support Harry's Place Blogburst ==

The proof comes from the fact that consistently look for negative stories on Muslims, painting them as subhuman while routinely ignoring Israeli atrocities or worse apologising for them.

The two external links to "Support Harry's Place Blogburst" and "Support Harry's Place Blogburst II" at the bottom of the article go to advertising holding pages. Shouldn't they be removed? Mikey <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.58.233.129|212.58.233.129]] ([[User talk:212.58.233.129|talk]]) 11:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yes, done. [[User:Neo Guard|Neo Guard]] ([[User talk:Neo Guard|talk]]) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The bias at Harry’s Place goes beyond a political stance, it is racial in character.

== Wikilinks ==

When David Duke does this he gets called out, When Jewish supremacist sites likes Harry’s Place do it we get Dbiv and Werner talking them up.

[[User:AFolkSingersBeard|AFolkSingersBeard]] keps adding a section stating that Harry's Place is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, preventing any article fro linking to it. He validates this with a link to [[MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist|the spam blacklist]]. However, not only is Wikipedia itself not a reliable source, but this comnment is patently nonsense. This article alone links to dozens of Harry's Place articles. It is absurd to add a sentence blatantly contradicting the evidence abundantly provided by this article. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]])</span> 11:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is that? What is their agenda? Why does wikipedia allow this disgrace?

:I agree about the blacklist not being a reliable source (and the blacklisting itself is not encyclopedic information) but I note that there ''is'' an entry in it that seems to reference the website:

:<pre>\bhurryupharry\.org\b</pre> [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

::I don't understand how the spam blacklist works, but the Linksearch tool shows 44 links to Harry's Place, from at least thirty articles and talk pages.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.hurryupharry.org]. So the edit is quite simply wrong. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]])</span> 09:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:::There is an explanation on MediaWiki about why Harry's Place appears on the list.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/04#Harry.27s_Place] Bottom line, it's nothing to do with the website itself but with the misuse of links to it by a "long term serial vandal". I would guess that someone opposed to Harry's Place has been trying to rig the blacklisting process to prevent Wikipedia from linking to it. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::::'''I would guess that someone opposed to Harry's Place has been trying to rig the blacklisting process to prevent Wikipedia from linking to it.''' Exactly. That's kind of a big deal. [[User:AFolkSingersBeard|AFolkSingersBeard]] ([[User talk:AFolkSingersBeard|talk]]) 09:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

::::: Yes it has been on the blacklist for some time and my efforts to understand why were ignored by admins, as per the page linked to above. An admin has made an exception for the URL with /index, which actually links to an entry rather than the main page. The blacklisting prevents one from adding links but does not remove the existing ones. However, afolksingersbeard, you shouldn't add this sort of internal Wikipedia matter to the article itself. The talk page is there for this sort of business. [[User:Mezigue|Mezigue]] ([[User talk:Mezigue|talk]]) 09:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::Huh? It sounds like you're saying Wikipedia shouldn't be airing its dirty laundry in public.

The entry here is an attempt to legtimise a hate site using wikipedia's respectability. That is why this entry is a disgrace and is shameful to wikipedia. Werner and Dbiv should have their rights revoked.

::::::When the subject of an article is blacklisted by one of the world's top internet sites, I'd say it's ''very'' notable.

::::::The point about Wikipedia itself not being a reliable source refers to articles about subjects other than Wikipedia. As seen in the article on [[Wikipedia]], it allows plenty of references when talking about itself.

::::::-- [[User:Randy2063|Randy2063]] ([[User talk:Randy2063|talk]]) 16:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

== Gilad Atzmon's blog ==

Maybe What Really Happened should be removed, but if so there is NO case for this rubbish to remain.

The citation is obviously to a self-published source, but attempting to remove it keeps triggering the spam filter which accuses me of adding a reference to Harry's Place itself, which is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist (see above), but Atzmon's website appears not to be! [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:Yeah I noticed that ages ago when trying to sort out the broken link, and I kept meaning to raise a request but I've procrastinated because I really don't understand all this blacklist business. Having said that I would have thought Atzmon's blog would be a legitimate source for his own reaction to discussion of him on Harry's Place? [[User:Mezigue|Mezigue]] ([[User talk:Mezigue|talk]]) 13:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

==Intro Paragraph==

But it will and what does that tell you?

Not too sure about the part about being nominated for, but not winning particular awards; doesn't seem too significant given the number of blogs involved, but happy to leave in. What I have removed though is an odd comment saying that some posters didn't care that they were nominated for a negative award. Seems a bit churlish, and would be true of every negative award. [[User:Marty jar|Marty jar]] ([[User talk:Marty jar|talk]]) 18:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]]

== Why is Harry's Place blocked on here? ==

:I have very little to say in response – I think your hysterical ranting speaks for itself.

I tried to post an edit to the article detailing the recent attack on Harry's Place, followed by a link to the blog itself. However, it told me that Harry's Place is blocked on Wikipedia. Why is this?[[User:Evildoer187|Evildoer187]] ([[User talk:Evildoer187|talk]]) 06:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Love this choice little comment, though: "Dbiv and Peter Werner. These guys are zionists." Your belief in a great big Zionist conspiracy of which we're part of is pretty sad, really. Really, 88, do you even know the first thing about my politics or my attitudes to Israel and Palastine? For my part, I'm a left-libertarian who believes in the right of Israel to exist with an ethnically Jewish majority within its pre-1967 boundaries, alongside an independent, economically-viable Palastinian state, both states hopefully having a democratic and secular character. Which, I guess on the outer fringes of the moonbat anti-zionist left you seem to inhabit, translates to a vicious anti-arab zionist perspective. Whatever – I care precious little about having the kind of politics you'd approve of. In fact, I'm glad I don't.

:The state of the art in explaining the complex tale is here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2012#Harry.27s_Place]. I lack the Wiki-skills to progress this, but it seems like HP should not really be blocked. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:As for Dbiv and I having our editing rights removed, all I have to say is that you can take the matter through [[Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes|Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures]]. I somehow doubt you'll actually do this as you know damn well don't have a leg to stand on. You might also try actually creating a Wikipedia account if the matter interests you so much, rather than hiding behind anonymity. And if you're upset that this article hasn't been removed, as I said, [[WP:AFD|nominate it for an AfD]].

== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==

:In terms of Wikipedia policy, I don't think the POV of the site is relevant to its inclusion here. The relevant criteria is notability, as outlined [[Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29|here]]. I believe that Harry's Place easily meets the first two criteria for notability, having been frequently mentioned in The Guardian and given a weblog award by them. As for the notability "What Really Happened", what does that have to do with me? (Oh, that's right, I'm part of the great Wikipedia Zionist conspiracy, so I must be in on it.) I'm reserving judgment on the whole matter until I learn more. It gets more hits than Harry's Place, but that's hardly the only criterion for notability. Other relevant questions are whether it generates much mention elsewhere in the blogosphere or, especially, in newspapers and other non-internet media. It seems like most of the outside links to "What Really Happened" are fairly anonymous links from sources such as Indymedia. In any event, note that I have not voted yet on the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Really_Happened|What Really Happened AfD]] and will not vote on the matter until I know more about the issue. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.

This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.

If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|request page for whitelisting]].

If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|blacklist request page]].

If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the [[meta:Talk:Spam Blacklist|request page on meta]].

When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.

The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.

Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much… You know Peter the term ‘Zionist’ is not an insult as you seem to interpret it.

And as for assuming that any Zionist must be involved in some global conspiracy as you seem to do I think your accusations are anti semitic in nature - perhaps you have been reading too many strange websites.

*<nowiki>http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/27/going-nowhere</nowiki>

And have you read your own policy on personal attacks?

*:''Triggered by <code>\bhurryupharry\.org\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact [[User:Cyberpower678]] and ask him to program me with more info.

In short get a grip of yourself Peter, your bleating here like a crying child stamping her foot because she does not get it all her own way.

From your friendly hard working bot.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberbot II</span>]] [[User talk:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:arnprior">Notify</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 18:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you own this site or just think you do?

Harry’s Place is an unpleasant (and racist) Zionist website. It was removed from wikipedia before but you and Dbiv went well out of your way to defy that decision and resurrect it.

Why?

Here we had a nasty little site that works very hard at demonizing Muslims, that was deleted, that you – with no connection to it apparently – just happen to decide is so important that you have to repost it after it was removed.

{{done|Resolved}} This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)== Why is Nick Cohen's opinion so important. ==

Seems strange to me for a person with no real interest Peter.

This sentence appears: "Nick Cohen has argued that Harry's Place was one of only few places where it was being noted that "a section of the left is allied with religious fanaticism and, for the first time since the Hitler-Stalin pact, […] has gone soft on fascism".[6]"

And what has it got to do with WhatReallyHappened – nothing except the arguments there demonstrate that all the reasons you presented for resurrecting Harry’s Place (with extreme arrogance I might add) were bull. I just have to read the comments of other wikipedia users on WRH to know that you really stretched yourself to justify reposting the HP entry.

Maybe Alexander Turpodin has a completely contrary opinion, but his opinion doesn't appear here. I don't know who Nick Cohen is, or care very much. Quoting him, without a contrary viewpoint, gives a specious objectivism to this section, whereas it is really a not-so-cunning attempt to smuggle in POV under the radar. The statement incidentally is demonstrably false, which makes the use of this quote particularly egregious.

Again for someone with no real interest in promoting a hate site you seem to care an awful lot about it.

I'd never heard of Harry's Place and came here to get some objective information. Instead, I find what comes across as zealously one-sided marketing collateral. The article is so bad that I think it should remain in its current, obviously biassed state, until someone can produce a proper article, to ensure that neutral readers are able to quickly smell what is going on. I'd be ashamed to have written this sort of junk.

And as for the comments about my politics – you are promoting and pushing a Zionist hate site on an encylcopedia used by kids – I think you should take a long hard look in the mirror.

[[User:88.101.187.61Mrwhoohoo|88.101.187.61Mrwhoohoo]] 07([[User talk:Mrwhoohoo|talk]]) 18:1114, 15 JuneFebruary 20062014 (UTC)

== There is nothing encyclopaedic about this entry at all ==

:I refuse to argue with or engage you any further on this. If you don't like this page, create an AfD for it. If you don't like my behavior, bring it to Wikipedia arbitration. I think the fact that you do neither of these, and the fact that you continue to hide behind anonymity speaks volumes about the case you're trying to make. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This entry reads like a childish and hurried 'notes' blog rather than anything to do with objective knowledge. The trite references to low-level weblog awards at the beginning are, for example, just embarrassing.The 'Politics' entry offers random claims which are not even sourced...etc, etc.... The raison d'être of Harry's Place appears to be for a small group of anonymous contributors to attack identified victims, while not giving those victims a right of reply. Sad that these people should be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote what they do in such a low-grade manner. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.101.241.139|89.101.241.139]] ([[User talk:89.101.241.139|talk]]) 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)No one asked you to engage! You did so of your own free will. And I could not care what you do now.

For the record the reason I do not list the page for deletion is that I have no idea how to do that.

Bu also what would be the point? You would only go and recreate it again.

You do not have any respect for the very process you are recommending I follow Peter - so what is the point?!

As for anonymity - you may want to consider the fact that you are publicly and openly associating yourself with promoting a hate site. How will that look on the resume in years to come?

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== This entry is being manipulated by Harry's Place apologists ==

:Harry's Place is not merely not a hate site, it is so obviously not a hate site as to raise questions over the sanity of anyone who asserts it is. Even if it was, that would not justify deleting the article. Wikipedia has articles on the holocaust and no-one claims that is promoting the mass-murder of Jews. If you want to get involved in improving Wikipedia you can get an account rather than editing anonymously (this doesn't mean revealing your name). But don't expect to be able to go to the talk page of an article, produce a recitation of your own prejudices, and then see this adopted as Wikipedia policy. That isn't how it works. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place apologists refuse to publicise the absolute fact that the blog is written by anonymous contributors, who do everything possible not to identify themselves. The blog's address is a PO Box in Washington DC, not Britain. All of this is designed to keep the blog under the radar when its victims consider legal action, including defending themselves against defamation. This is what Harry's Place does - anyone can tell this by reading it. If the apologists continue to remove the truth from this entry, then all of their unsourced material should be removed.

It is very noticeable that none of the apologists both with Talk pages - they just vandalise and manipulate. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.101.241.139|89.101.241.139]] ([[User talk:89.101.241.139|talk]]) 10:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:"For the record the reason I do not list the page for deletion is that I have no idea how to do that." – The procedure can be found here:

:Accusing people of vandalism is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] unless you can back it up with facts (i.e. diffs showing actual vandalism). Moreover,since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you are required to backup your statements with sources. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. [[User:Kleuske|Kleuske]] ([[User talk:Kleuske|talk]]) 12:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

:[[WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion|How_to_list_pages_for_deletion]].

== Sourced material ==

:"But also what would be the point? You would only go and recreate it again. You do not have any respect for the very process you are recommending I follow Peter - so what is the point?!" – I have already stated at the very top of this Talk page, had you bothered to read it, my reasons for resurecting the page, my contention that the findings of the first vote were in error, and I have stated that if, in spite of my arguments to the contrary, there was another AfD consensus for deletion, then I will respect that vote and not resurrect this page. If you think you have a case for this page to be taken down, by all means, go ahead and make it.

The person who keeps reverting to unsourced claims does so with no explanation at all. This entry needs to be SOURCED according to Wikipedia guidelines. If you can't source your claims, take them out. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for anonymous Harry's Place contributors to make unsubstantiated promotional claims for their blog. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.71.193.228|83.71.193.228]] ([[User talk:83.71.193.228|talk]]) 12:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:While were at it, since you seem to have a problem with me personally, here are the procedures for dispute resoultion:

:[[Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes|Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures]]

:An arbitration that rules against me could go so far as to have me permanently banned from editing. If you think what I'm doing is so bloody awful, there's your recourse. Put up or shut up! [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would not justify deleting it but it should make you think about resurrecting the entry after it has been deleted.

And David - I never wanted to delete the HP entry - I merely wanted to add some critical comment to its entry - but you would not allow that - remember - you kept deleting my comments no matter how I changed it (to suit your moans).

So no critical content is allowed (by you) and if it gets deleted you (or your proxies) repost it.

You guys are unbelievable.

You promote a hate site giving it a glowing endorsement as a 'political blog' and then when anyone wants to add a critical perspective you delete it.

I see that many websites have critical paragraphs in wikipedia (like the anti semitism paragraph in Whatreallyhappened's entry) but when I try to add something similar to HP you come out with a bunch of convoluted and contradictory reasons.

That is why I think you doing this for political reasons.

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:You do not seem to understand the [[WP:NPOV|Neutral Point of View]] policy which is fundamental to Wikipedia. You wanted to add that Harry's Place is a hate site, but that is just your opinion. Wikipedia does not take any stance on any dispute. If you can find a respectable source that has claimed that Harry's Place is a hate site, then you might be justified in adding that some people have accused it of being a hate site - that would be unchallengeably true. But until then, you can't add what you want. Neither can I add that Harry's Place is not merely a scintillating read but also right on the button on all major policy areas - because that's just my point of view, not a fact. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:I take it, then, that you (88.101.187.61) are the same person as [[User:Monkey boy007|Monkey boy007]], since that's the only contributor that David or I have totally reverted. Your contribution (which can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry%27s_Place&oldid=54395480#Racism_and_prejudice here]) was blatantly in violation of [[WP:POV|Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy]], being merely a statement of your point of view, without any reference to anything that anybody other than you has actually written about Harry's Place. Note that in material I have contributed, I have tried to stick to an NPOV policy, simply writing about the site and not giving my views on it. I have also made a point of including a section on "[[Harry%27s_Place#Controversy|Controversy]]" where I discuss the major controversies surrounding Harry's Place, and actually give references to where these statements and accusations are made. If you think something important has been left out, feel free to add it, but keep in mind that this should actually be something that was written about Harry's Place by an outside source, and not just your personal POV. And, in any event, you should make a good faith attempt to adhere to [[WP:NPOV]] in your writing. Otherwise, don't be surprised if your contributions are routinely reverted. That's basic Wikipedia policy, not some Zionist cabal at work – something along the lines of "It is widely held that most Palestinians are dangerous terrorists and anti-Semites" added to the article on [[Palestinian people]] would similarly be quickly reverted. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 06:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All fine and well Peter except for one small problem - I am not 'Monkey boy007'. Did it ever occur to you that someone else might have come to the same conclusion?

That is what happens when you visit Harry’s Place for long enough. At first you think this is just a 'political blog' but slowly you start to get an uneasy feeling as a creeping realisation hits you - all these articles seem to have predetermined outcome no matter what the news event - and that is muslims and / or islam is bad or stupid or evil.

Then after more time visiting another clear trend emerges - no critical comment on Israel is allowed at all unless to apologise or justify some atrocity.

When David Duke does the reverse this is rightly seen for what it is - hate filled propaganda.

But when Harry's Place does the exact same thing (but is anti muslim instead of anti jew) then we have guys like you and David trying to tell us with a straight face that this is just some political blog. Supremacism is an evil Peter - even jewish supremacism.

And once again who mentioned a zionist cabal except you? Do you keep trying to insert that into my words in order to launch into your anti semite mud slinging routine?

If so it is rather tedious Peter and I might say extremely disrespectful to those who know the true meaning of suffering anti semitism. It is a bit like pimping out the victims of the holocaust to try and win a cheap political point. Shameful.

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 06:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, it didn't occur to me to think you were "Monkey Boy" until your complaint about having your edits reverted. 'Monkey boy007' is the only person who's added content that was totally reverted. You claim that David has reverted your edits. Can you give me a name and date on the "history" page for this article where you contributed something and were reverted? I simply don't see it.<br><br>As for the rest of your message, it doesn't even so much as merit a response. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::After looking over [[User_talk:Dbiv/Archive4#Harry.27s_Place|David's Talk page archive]], I see that you're referring to the previous version of this page, for which the history page no longer exists. Anyway, after seeing your contribution, I'll simply say that my statement about MB's contribution applies to your contribution as well. That's all I have to say about the matter. Take it to an arbitrator if you don't like it – I have no reason to change anything I'm doing on your behalf. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 09:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter,

The reason you initially presented for reposting this page was - the large size of Harry’s Place traffic rank made it notable.

‘Fan1967’ quickly pointed out that this was based on an erroneous understanding of the traffic measure you quoted.

It turns out the exact opposite is true.

HP actually has a terrible traffic rank.

Of course according to your own logic - presented in your first argument that traffic is key to HP’s notability – this makes HP completely non notable.

But as soon as this mistake was pointed out you immediately dismissed the traffic argument and changed to HP being notable because of ‘mentions in the press’. And of course this new claim of notability is garbage too but much harder to verify.

At that point David has to make an appearance to shore up your contradictory and frankly piss weak argument. Hmmm how very convenient…

Peter - it is obvious you are just a sock puppet for David.

But hey- - if you want your names to be permanently linked to the promotion of a hate site that is your choice.

But remember - sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 09:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:I should block you for personal attacks on both me and Peter Werner but really can't be bothered. You may be a troll but you are essentially harmless. You can't substantiate that Harry's Place is a hate site, you know you haven't a substantial argument for deletion, and your attempt to wind us both up has failed. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you live in a fantasy world David - what personal attacks are you talking about?

Here is what I am saying...

You put Peter up to resurrecting your Harry's Place page after it was deleted. It is plain to see and obvious to anyone who looks.

I think you did it for political reasons because you are a supporter of HP’s extremist views. You like to comment there and HP makes a point of treating you like a favoured son whenever you do.

Notability does not come into it. You like what they say and you want to promote their views further.

Unfortunately Harry's Place is a zionist propaganda hate site. Any study of their archives will quickly back this up.

Take twenty stories on the middle east and count how many slag off muslims or islam - it will be all twenty.

Count how many critisise Israel – it will be none.

Find another twenty – it will be the same.

You then ask for a substantial argument or conclusive proof it is hate site - but what is the point - your minds are made up and you will delete as usual.

This is demonstrated by the immediate shift in your justifications after your original traffic reason was proven to be utter rubbish.

Then all of a sudden it is another reason. And so on…

David it is you who is promoting a hate site on here – surely you should be checking what filth you are associating yourself with and not relying on me to convince you.

Take responsibility for your own actions Davis and remove this page.

Harry's Place is a bigoted web site, and you used underhand methods to keep promoting it on this encyclopedia after it was voted off.

People can draw their own conclusions on your motives.

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:While I'm trying to avoid further troll feeding, I do want to put in a word of correction about the following statement: "You put Peter up to resurrecting your Harry's Place page after it was deleted. It is plain to see and obvious to anyone who looks." Actually, resurrecting the Harry's Place page was largely my idea and I contacted David because he was a Wikipedia administrator and from previous posts seemed like he's be supportive toward resurrecting the page. All of this was openly discussed on David's Talk page [[User_talk:Dbiv#Harry.27s_Place_deletion|here]]. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::To call a person a "troll" simply becuase you do not like their argument is a personal attack. And your 'explanation' above is unconvincing to say the least. [[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have been called a troll I think it now fair and worthwhile to point out that Dbiv is featured on the "Wikipedia Watch" site.

I think that tells you a lot about my integrity versus Dbiv's despite the usual smears thrown out on here.

Wikipedia is rapidly losing credibility due to the political activities of 'administrators' like Dbiv and Peter Werner.

(wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#033)

The link above to Dbiv is on the page "Wikipedia is out of control" - but yeah I am the troll. What a joke.

Time to remove this rubbish and ban the true trolls behind it no?

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Monkey Boy: 'The proof comes from the fact that consistently look for negative stories on Muslims, painting them as subhuman while routinely ignoring Israeli atrocities or worse apologising for them.

The bias at Harry’s Place goes beyond a political stance, it is racial in character.

When David Duke does this he gets called out, When Jewish supremacist sites likes Harry’s Place do it we get Dbiv and Werner talking them up.'

Just to mention that anyone with the slightest familiarity with David Duke's writing would know that 'apologising for Israeli atrocities' is really not his style. Quite the opposite, in fact.--[[User:Lopakhin|Lopakhin]] 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

== "One of the most-read politcal websites in the UK" ==

On "Shiraz Socialist", a blog strongly opposed to Harry's Place, I came across [http://shirazsocialist.blogspot.com/2006/07/neocon-movement-in-uk.html this post], which included an interesting tidbit:

"Harry's Place is one of the most-read political websites in the UK, and is almost certainly the number one in terms of comment that it attracts in the mainstream media."

Yet another case against the supposed "non-notability" of Harry's Place. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

==Nick Cohen==

I reverted the change just now, because a) It is unnecessary and possibly POV to note that Cohen is an admirer of Harry's Place (and would require verification anyway) and b) Interpollaton in quotes ia a dangerous area.--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

==Jonathan Hari==

Why have my references to the vilification jonathan Hari received on leaving Harry's Place been deleted? As it stands the article implies that the split occured without bad feeling on either part. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:SpeakerToAnimals|SpeakerToAnimals]] ([[User talk:SpeakerToAnimals|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SpeakerToAnimals|contribs]]) 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:The post you linked to as a reference simply quoted a passage of Hari's writing. It contained no vilification at all. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

=="Readership" section==

What purpose does this serve? It seems to simply be a list of people who have publicly stated that they like Harry's Place. I'm sure that one could quite easily compile a list of people who don't like Harry's Place. I see no particular value in recording that Nick Cohen likes something. If at all relevant the references might be minor points on the pages for the people concerned, as indications of their political viewpoints, but here it just looks like puffing for the site. --[[User:Fridgemagnet|Fridgemagnet]] 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:When it was contended that Harry's Place was not sufficiently notable, the citations in this section disproved it and established that it met [[WP:WEB]]. I personally wouldn't have removed all of it. The significance is that it shows where the site is placed politically, and also demonstrates its influence on political discussion. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;[[User:Fys|Ta]] [[Special:Contributions/Fys|fys]] [[User talk:Fys|aym]]&#148;. 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::That context makes sense, but I would have thought that since "notability" is a Wikipedia issue things backing it up would be best in the talk page rather than the article. As I said, it read to me like an attempt at celebrity endorsement. (I'm not challenging the notability here by the way.) I think the rest of the article is fairly clear on the site's political position, and isolated positive quotes from journalists I would contend do not show an influence on political discussion. If something's thought to be necessary to illustrate notability for future reference, I'd say just a sentence somewhere like "Harry's Place has been mentioned in publications such as X, Y, Z" with references would be better. --[[User:Fridgemagnet|Fridgemagnet]] 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I never quite liked that section, but considering that at the time it was kind of a struggle to get the notability of this blog established (there were numerous threats to delete the entire article at the time), I left it in. But you're right, I think deletion of that section was justified. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== I take issue with this edit ==

Removal of "Like many critics of Islamism" from "Like many critics of Islamism, ''Harry's Place'' is often accused of [[Islamophobia]]." Its patently obvious to me that accusations of "Islamophobia" against Harry's Place is part of a generalized smear campaign by any and all critics of Islam by [[Islamophobia Watch]]. Of course, that represents a POV that needs to be referenced and balanced, so I'll let the edit stand for the time being. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

''Its patently obvious to me that accusations of "Islamophobia" against Harry's Place is part of a generalized smear campaign by any and all critics of Islam by Islamophobia Watch.'' I can see that Harry's Place is deeply Islamophobic. Are you claiming that I am part of Islamophobia Watch or in their employ? I am not. I am not a Muslim, nor am I particularly sympathetic to Islam. Your charge is insulting and absurd. I think you should apologise immediately or resign your position at Wikipedia since your involvement brings their supposed 'impartiality' into disrepute.[[User:SpeakerToAnimals|SpeakerToAnimals]] 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== I take issue with this Peter Werner hypocrisy ==

Peter Werner complains above...

"Your belief in a great big Zionist conspiracy of which we're part of is pretty sad, really."

Peter Werner later complains above...

"Its patently obvious to me that accusations of "Islamophobia" against Harry's Place is part of a generalized smear campaign by any and all critics of Islam by [[Islamophobia Watch]]"

So Peter, you think it is "pretty sad" to think that you and Dbiv are zionist sock puppets for Harry's Place.

But later you think that all critics of Harry's Place are part of an Islamist Plot to smear Harry's Place.

How funny that you think you can ridicule an argument one minute and then use it the next. Do you think you are special? That you are above the same standards you set for others? That only poor little you is ever the victim?

Harry's Place is nasty, racist, little blog that works hard at demonising muslims and islam at every opportunity. Like it or not you and Dbiv are fanatical supporters of an insidious hate site with an obvious Jewish Supremacist agenda.

You are the focus of Islamaphobia Watch because you peddle hate and dress it up as comment.

In short you are utterly despicable and this entry is testimony to your blatant double standards and hypocrisy.

Islamic smear campaign! Yeah right Peter the muslims are out get you because they dislike your freedom. Or maybe they are out to get you because you support a racist hate blog.

But do not worry Peter and Dbiv - I will be around to make sure all remember your little contribution. Keep it up, you continue to honour yourself.

[[User:88.101.187.61|88.101.187.61]] 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:No response except to note this as an incident of [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] by 88.101.187.61 against me. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The contributor above may decend into paranoia and personal abuse about Zionism but he has a point about your dismissal of accusations of Islamophobia as being 'merely a plot by Islamophobia watch'. This is itself paranoid claptrap and in no way substantiated.[[User:SpeakerToAnimals|SpeakerToAnimals]] 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== Encourages Vigilantism ==

I think evidence that Harry's Blog is, in fact, a hate site can be found in their archives here:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006_10.html

under the heading 'Who Is He?', where the blog published several pictures of a Muslim protestor they believed had reported a member of the blog to the police for threatening behaviour.

The article appealed to readers to identify the protestor.

This is the same means of intimidation practiced by the far-right group Red-Watch, as noted by some of the commentators on the blog, and encourages vigilantism. {{unsigned|SpeakerToAnimals|14:19, 9 November 2006}}

:Similar to my reply on your talk page, we are not really aiming to determine conclusively that Harry's Place is or isn't a hate site - that would be original research, which we don't do. If there is a body of opinion that this post qualifies it as a hate site then we can report on it but otherwise we can't. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then would it be acceptable for me to include a comment in the entry that makes the following, factual and verifyiable points:

a) Harry's Place has published the article 'Who Is He?' cited above, to which I can include a hyperlink.

b) That this site explicitly calls for the identification of a protestor that they are in dispute with for allegedly taking perfectly legal action against contributors to the site, as can be seen by following that link.

c) That similar articles are published by the far right group Red-Watch

d) That this similarity has been pointed out on Harry's Place itself, as the hyperlink shows.

Readers can then make their own judgements.

:Not acceptable. That's [[WP:NOR|original research]]. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;[[User:Fys|Ta]] [[Special:Contributions/Fys|fys]] [[User talk:Fys|aym]]&#148;. 11:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an utterly bizarre arguement.

The definition Wikepedia uses for 'Original research' is this:

'Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source.'

The 'reliable source' I am quoting is THE SITE ITSELF.

If THE SITE ITSELF cannot be quoted as evidence against it, then other articles which quote the site as evidence against it can't be regarded as a 'reliable source' either since they ultimately draw from the same source.

There would be absolutely no way of establishing the status of any hate site even if it announces itself as a hate site since that announcement would not be regarded as being from a 'reliable source'.

In fact, unless you accept evidence which is published on Harry's Place, or which draws upon that evidence, there is nothing to establish that Harry's Place actually exists.

''It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position''

None of this is unpublished since THE SITE ITSELF has published it and the archive material is still there for all to see.

The facts that

a) Harry's Place has published the article 'Who Is He?'.

b) That it explicitly calls for the identification of that protestor.

c) That similar articles are published by the far right group Red-Watch as noted in your own entry on that organisation :

'[[Redwatch]] is an extreme-right magazine and website, published in the United Kingdom, that displays photographs and personal information of people they perceive to be political opponents of their ideology.'

d) That this similarity has been pointed out on Harry's Place itself.

are incontestable and the hyperlink to this article prove this beyond any doubt.

:It is your point (d) that is the giveaway. The fact that one commenter has made a comparison does not make this a significant body of opinion. The posting did not call for vigilantism and no-one has suggested that Harry's Place has actually led to any attacks, quite unlike Redwatch. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;[[User:Fys|Ta]] [[Special:Contributions/Fys|fys]] [[User talk:Fys|aym]]&#148;. 12:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The you would accept points a) to c)?

::Points a) and b) are obvious and banal. I don't accept c) at all. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;[[User:Fys|Ta]] [[Special:Contributions/Fys|fys]] [[User talk:Fys|aym]]&#148;. 12:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you not accept that Redwatch 'displays photographs and personal information of people they perceive to be political opponents of their ideology' when Wikipdia states this explicitly?

Why do you not remove it from the Wikipedia if it is untrue?

:::I said nothing about Redwatch. What I said was that it is not reasonable to compare Harry's Place to it, and that no significant body of opinion has done so. No use making the argument here. You go out and find a significant body of opinion and the article can report their opinion. That's really all there is to say on the matter. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;[[User:Fys|Ta]] [[Special:Contributions/Fys|fys]] [[User talk:Fys|aym]]&#148;. 12:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place use of identification as intimidation against its political opponents is EXACTLY the same as the use of those tactics by Redwatch and both have used this tactic against people from ethnic minorities.

That makes them both hate sites.

::Please read the undue weight section of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Why is one post out of thousands being singled out for analysis here when no other reliable sources have done so? Also, with regard to [[Wikipedia:No original research]], I have no interest in trying to refute your arguments but they are original ones. Putting a set of statements together in such a way as strongly suggests a novel conclusion is original research, even if you don't explicitly state the conclusion. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::I agree that this point is Interpretative OR - it would only merit inclusion of a notable critic of HP had drawn the same conclusion, and in this context I'd exclude bloggers from such a purpose. Beyond that, we can look at the significance - the article on Hitler doesn't mention the length of his arms, although that could doubtless be verifiably ascertained - this is an encyclopaedia, it includes only information of significance.--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy, as one of Harry's Place's main contributors you can hardly be considered as an impartial judge on this issue. {{unsigned|SpeakerToAnimals|16:02, 10 November 2006}}

:Erm, I regularly criticisse HP and it's contributors in the comments box, and am generally hostile to its politics - I am, also, a reasonably long serving Wikpedian with a commitment to u[holding encyclopaedic standards. All of which has been irrelvent, anyway, since the day they discovered all Yorkshiremen are liars...--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Statement not even remotely NPOV ==

I changed the following from:

"Gene has been heavily criticised for his support for those who overthrew democracy and kidnapped Chavez in the 2002 US backed coup"

to:

"Gene has been heavily criticised for his support for the [[Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002|2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez]]."

Is NPOV language too much to ask for here?

Also, I have my doubts about the accuracy of this statement, but I'll let it stand until I have a chance to fact check it.

[[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've given the most likely citation source for that - the criticisms will be in the comments. Gene's views on Chavez are notable regarding the blog, and so the ref. should link to this article somehow, I'll levae assesment and tone to others.--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless Werner is suggesting that Chavez was not kidnapped or was not democratically elected in the first place the edit is absurd.

The statement that "Gene has been heavily criticised for his support for the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez" deliberately obscures the fact that a democracy was overthrown in the process.

I can see no other reason for this change.{{unsigned|SpeakerToAnimals|16:06, 14 November 2006}}

:PLease sign your postings with four tildas...--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

STA – I'm suggesting that stating that "democracy was overthrown" or that "Chavez was kidnapped" or that the US was behind the coup represents a point of view, rather than unambiguous, neutral statement of fact. That should be obvious, unless you're just trying to deliberately obscure the issue. Red Deathy – Fair enough. I'm aware that HP in general takes a strongly anti-Chavez line, but what I don't remember is support for the 2002 coup. Again, I could be wrong about this. [[User:Peter G Werner|Peter G Werner]] 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think there'll be any specific support for the coup, but alleged tacit support for coup plotters and the the political forces behind it, as in the post I cited.--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 08:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If a democratically elected leader of a country is removed by force and taken into custody, how can this 'objectively' be described as anything other than the overthrowing of democracy through kidnapping?

Please demonstrate a more neutral description which does not hide the important facts.

[[User:SpeakerToAnimals|SpeakerToAnimals]] 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:Since a coup is ''ipso facto'' not democratic that term suffices. Kidnapped could be replaced with '''captured''' or '''arrested''', or the simple '''held'''. Alternatively '''democratically elected leader of a country is removed by force and taken into custody''' strikes me as adequately NPOV--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)