Talk:Harry's Place/Archive 1

Article recreated

This page was deleted in November 2005 based upon an AfD consensus that Harry's Place was a non-notable blog.[1] The page was recreated, and on Feb 24, 2006 unilaterally deleted by Marudubshinki based on the still-standing AfD consensus.[2]

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 [3]. A Google search (excluding the site itself and wikipedia) returns 461 unique pages [4]. It has also been nominated for several UK and European weblog awards.[5] [6] I believe that Harry's Place is a significant blog and a significant forum of the "pro-war left" political tendency.

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

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

Comment You have misread the traffic information [7]. 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: [8]. No comparison. Fan1967 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peter G Werner 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peter G Werner 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this page up for Deletion review 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. Peter G Werner 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at 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. Peter G Werner 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88.101.187.61 comments

It is a disgrace that this page keeps reappearing.

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.

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

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

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

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

Why Dbiv?

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?

What is your political agenda in supporting this foul site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.187.61 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 April 2006

Please read no personal attacks. I did not create the article in its present form, 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. David | Talk 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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. Peter G Werner 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkey boy007 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 May 2006

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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.197.225 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 May 2006

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.

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 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. Peter G Werner 01:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88.101.187.61 comments 2

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.

Why?

Because it is accused of having an anti Israeli bias.

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

One entry gets attacked, another gets protected.

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

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

Harry's Place is a hate site.

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.

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

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.

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

But it will and what does that tell you? 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)88.101.187.61

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

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.

As for Dbiv and I having our editing rights removed, all I have to say is that you can take the matter through 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, nominate it for an AfD.

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 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 What Really Happened AfD and will not vote on the matter until I know more about the issue. Peter G Werner 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

And have you read your own policy on personal attacks?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. 88.101.187.61 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peter G Werner 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? 88.101.187.61 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. David | Talk 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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:

How_to_list_pages_for_deletion.

"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.

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

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! Peter G Werner 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. 88.101.187.61 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to understand the 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. David | Talk 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, then, that you (88.101.187.61) are the same person as Monkey boy007, since that's the only contributor that David or I have totally reverted. Your contribution (which can be seen here) was blatantly in violation of 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 "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. Peter G Werner 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?[reply]

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.

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

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.

As for the rest of your message, it doesn't even so much as merit a response. Peter G Werner 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over 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. Peter G Werner 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. 88.101.187.61 09:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. David | Talk 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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

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 here. Peter G Werner 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. 88.101.187.61 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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?

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

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.--Lopakhin 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

On "Shiraz Socialist", a blog strongly opposed to Harry's Place, I came across 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. Peter G Werner 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Red Deathy 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpeakerToAnimals (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

"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. --Fridgemagnet 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fys. Ta fys aym. 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Fridgemagnet 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peter G Werner 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peter G Werner 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.SpeakerToAnimals 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

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.SpeakerToAnimals 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakerToAnimals (talk • contribs) 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. --Cherry blossom tree 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 original research. Fys. Ta fys aym. 11:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The you would accept points a) to c)?

Points a) and b) are obvious and banal. I don't accept c) at all. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Cherry blossom tree 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Red Deathy 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deathy, as one of Harry's Place's main contributors you can hardly be considered as an impartial judge on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakerToAnimals (talk • contribs) 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...--Red Deathy 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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

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.--Red Deathy 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakerToAnimals (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 November 2006

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

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. Peter G Werner 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Red Deathy 08:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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--Red Deathy 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical statements reverted back in

I reverted the following statements back into the article:

Critics of the site take issue with the contributors identification of their politics as "left", holding that their support for the war in Iraq and their alleged Islamophobia precludes them from being left-wing in any sense.^{[citation needed]} Critics also contend that Harry's Place and the "pro-war left" does not represent a political movement of any significance, but is simply the voice of a relatively few individuals amplified through the blogosphere.^{[citation needed]}

This was deleted by User:LeContexte with the comments, "deletion of unsourced POV commentary". I agree, these statements need proper sourcing and I will work on that. As for "POV", these statements are the POV of critics of the site and are explicitly stated as such. A note on the context to all of this – I wrote the above statement, and indeed, wrote about 90% of the article. As you can see from earlier comments, I've gotten no small measure of flack about my supposed bias in favor of the site. (I in fact have been a commentator to the site in the past and am on record as being a Euston Manifesto signer.) I have, nonetheless, specifically tried to write an NPOV article and one of the ways I did that was by inclusion of criticisms like the above, views that are in fact quite opposed to my own. I believe such views are a necessary part of the article for balance and ask that they remain. I will work on properly sourcing them. Peter G Werner 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noted! by "POV" I meant that they seemed a POV comment by the editor who inserted them, rather than a presentation of POV comments by others. Of course the latter is fine if the comments can be sourced. LeContexte 09:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of "Harry"

User:Resistor999 has repeatedly included a statement identifying "Harry" as a reporter for Reuters Sport. No source is given for this, and the only reference found by google is in a post by "resistor" at this blog. Unless a verifiable source can be cited, the claim would seem to be, at best, original research and should not be included in this article. LeContexte 09:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with British Muslim Initiative

I edited the Constroversy section to include this. Fleshisgrass (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]