Talk:Harry's Place

message: LMAO. They are not 'academics'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.253.184 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  academics critical of Israel such as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Shlomo Sand 

message: Could someone with more knowledge take a look at the recent edits by an IP editor diff. They look grossly POV, but I don't know enough about the subject to know what to do. Thanks, Matty (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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.
I am not the first to make this point and I shan't be the last.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZHackenbusch (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I would strongly recommend reading WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's policy towards maintaining a NEUTRAL Point Of View. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Matty (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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 "Wikipedia is not censored". Peter G Werner (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: 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.
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?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZHackenbusch (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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. The Tragic Case of Keith Burstein, 11 May 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZHackenbusch (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZHackenbusch (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of objectivity on the page 

message: Right, just a quick explanation on my latest reverts as I have no doubt this "new" poster will kick up a fuss again:
* 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.... Mezigue (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest bunch of edits... 

message: :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. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed edit

message: 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  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Harry's Place Blogburst 

message: 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! Philip Cross (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?  Mezigue (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilad Atzmon's blog 

message: 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. Marty jar (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Paragraph

message: 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?Evildoer187 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The state of the art in explaining the complex tale is here . I lack the Wiki-skills to progress this, but it seems like HP should not really be blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Harry's Place blocked on here? 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
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 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 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 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:
*http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/27/going-nowhere
*:Triggered by \bhurryupharry\.org\b 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.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.241.139 (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is nothing encyclopaedic about this entry at all 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.241.139 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing people of vandalism is a 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. Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry is being manipulated by Harry's Place apologists  

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.193.228 (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced material