Talk:Ezra Nawi

Neutral-source article

For future reference, here is a recent article from the New York Times about Nawi's activism and conviction: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/world/middleeast/28westbank.html. --ThorstenNY (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC) in source 8 which claims that "settlers" have tried to assasinate Mr. Nawi, yet there is no evidence of any such attempt to assasinate Mr. Nawi. The only mention of an attempt is found in this quote. "In the last few weeks, police intelligence agents have warned him on several occasions that the settlers intend to take him out. 'Whoever brings his head will be very highly regarded in the settlements,' says attorney Yael Barda, who helps the Palestinians in the region. " The lack of a real quote from police leads me to believe that the accusation is baseless. That Haartz would use a quote from Yael Barda which insinuates that the "settlers" are a bunch of thugs which honor people who murder "activists" is troubling. Perhaps it should be stated that Haartz is propaganda organ for the "palestinian" cause and people like Nawi. 173.11.124.141 (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC) wendysfriend

Sex and drugs convictions since 1992

Its interesting to note that Ezra Nawi's Hebrew Wikipedia page mentions the 1992 conviction for sodomy with a minor (who was a Palestinian Arab) etc (with a link to a transcript of the original court proceedings from the court website) but - up until now - the English version of the page does not (nor the Spanish). cckkab (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Mr. Nawi's statutory rape conviction deserves more than a footnote. Especially in the context of the 2011 Irish presidential election. Having read through this talk page Roland R's continued opposition to the inclusion of relevant facts in the article are more than a little biased, the conviction has recieved significant coverage in the media and while aspects of the conviction are questionable it would be better to explore them than try to sweep the whole thing under the "non-notable" carpet. Theicychameleon (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

RolandR Reverted 3 edits by Cckkab (talk): "The sources cited do not confirm this claim." Again, there is a link to a transcript of the original court proceedings from the court website, + a reference to a newspaper article (the well known Haaretz) + I could add many more articles supporting the evidence. Plus the information and references are carried on the Hebrew entry. So I'd consider RolandR undo as vandalism. cckkab (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew Wikipedia article does not link to any court transcript; it uses the same Hebrew Wikipedia article used here. This article makes no mention of any alleged conviction in 1992, it merely relates to Nawi's 2009 conviction for "assaulting a police officer". I will see if I can find the English version of this article in the Haaretz archive. Without a reliable source -- which we do not have -- this claim is totally unacceptable in a biography of a living person. RolandR (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)}

I can get you transcripts. But your claim (in the comments) that Haaretz does support the conviction is patently false). Note that the 1992 sex conviction is noow front page news in Ireland because of a presidential candidate's amorous links to Ezra Nawi. You are not going to be able to go against the extensive evidence now across the world press.

The current interest in the underage sex case stems from the association of Ezra Nawi to Irish presidential hopeful, David Norris , with the association leading to several of David Norris’ campaigners resigning http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0730/1224301621244.html

Yes please! Any information about the case relating to the ongoing Irish attention would be a very valuable addition to the article. Clarifying the name would also be nice — David Norris' letter refers to him as Ezra Yizhak. Thanks! --CyHawk (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this man is a convicted rapist should by mentioned! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14357589 --Zimmer79 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been protected on an old version for two weeks per a complaint at WP:AN3. Please discuss here the quality of the evidence of criminal violations that has recently been added to the article. We should not be relying on a Google translation from the Hebrew to get the details of a legal process correct. People who know Hebrew should be participating. Because this man appears well-known internationally, such information would be expected to also be published in English if it is actually true. Note that even now some of the reference links in the article don't work, like ref. 9 about the international campaign in his support. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed Johnston notes above that footnote 9 is wrong. It looks as though the site has lapsed. The content is archived on the Wayback Machine; could an admin edit this footnote, to link to the archived page? Thanks RolandR (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the sources given above, we also have in English, evidence of his sex and drug-related convictions in the following:

Haaretz (Haaretz.com is one of the world's leading English-language Website for real-time news and analysis of Israel and the Middle East.): http://www.haaretz.com/news/leftist-jailed-for-1-month-for-assaulting-police-in-west-bank-1.5708 Nawi, who has prior convictions for sexually assaulting a minor, illegal use of weapons and drug offenses, has been active for Palestinian rights...

SHALOM LIFE: http://www.shalomlife.com/news/13374/west-bank-sexual-assaults-silenced--page2/ it was also revealed that Nawi is a convicted pedophile, having been convicted of sexually assaulting a Palestinian boy. '

Israel-academia-monitor.com - Hebrew University http://israel-academia-monitor.com/index.php?type=large_advic&advice_id=8056&page_data%5Bid%5D=173&cookie_lang=en “Nawi was convicted in 1992 for committing a sodomy act in a youth and for drug abuse.”

Ezra Nawi's claim to fame was that of a local rights activist, treated unjustly (which, while sad, does not make into an international figure at all). His past convictions are now figuring prominently in the news in Ireland because of his relationship with Irish presidential hopeful, David Norris. The Irish press takes Ezra Nawi's convictions in the 1990s as a given (with the best evidence of course on http://www.court.gov.il). Blogs are picking up now on the censoring out of this information from the Wikipedia English page on Ezra Nawi. cckkab (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have searched for hours, and cannot find any contemporary report of the incident. The only detailed account I can find is in the talk page for the Hebrew Wikipedia article, where an editor states that Nawi was convicted of consensual sex with a 17.5 year old Palestinian youth, at a time when the heterosexual age of consent in Israel was 16, but the homosexual age of consent was 18; the ages were not equalised until 2000.[1] I'll try to find more about this; but, if true, many would see this not as a "sex crime", but as anti-gay discrimination. RolandR (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Were there convictions for sex and drugs offences, or there weren't? We are not talking about points of view. But facts. The convictions sex and drug offences started 19 years ago, to someone unknown at the time (the political agitation came 15 years later, after he split with Norris). The convications are in all the Irish press this weekend because of Nawi's amorous relationship with the leading presidential hopeful (and after the convictions). Again, the multiple Israeli sources (even outside of Hebrew) - see above (or on the Irish Gaelic version of the Nawi page) - seem reliable to me. (by the way, the Irish press says that the conviction in relation to the 1992 sodomy case was with a 15y old. Whatever, the law is the law).

RolandR's past Wikipedia history (and controversies) illustrate his interests in this and other matters. Let's see if the administrators can be less partial.

and the adminstrators might update the English page to show that the Nawi page in Irish and any other languages. cckkab (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm Irish and needless to say the sole reason I'm here is because of the David Norris story. If this is the same man, I find it really odd that there isn't a mention of this conviction in the article. The photo here makes him seem like a lovely, caring man - not a child-raping, cheating, back-stabbing man. Can somebody reconcile both? Thanks a million. 86.42.20.205 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.77.120.79, 30 July 2011

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisd.html

Mr Ezra Yizhak Nawi

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0730/breaking21.html convicted in Israel of comitting an indicent act on a minor in 1992 http://www.israpost.com/Community/articles/Pop_Show.php?articleID=28491 not mentioned in his page

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-page/congrats-to-haaretz-for-correcting-its-previous-untruths-re-nawi-19.46352

a letter from Irish senator David Norris, current presidential hopeful pleading for clememncy on behalf of his ex lover Mr Ezra Yizhak Nawi that is now causing controversy in Ireland http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisletter.pdf

109.77.120.79 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence of the convictions of the 1990s is clearly overwhelming. The refusal to update the page is inviting derision of Wikipedia in English. What is disturbing I find is how an obvious militant like RolandR's with past Wikipedia controversies can find an administrator to pander to his whims. This isn’t the first time. But RolandR didn’t choose a good battleground this time.

By the way, link No 6 to the website http://www.citizennawi.com/ does not work. This link supports the following 2 sentences “After meeting and dating Fuad Mussa, a Palestinian man, Nawi joined the Jewish-Arab human rights organization Ta'ayush”; and “”In 2007 a film about Nawi's life and work directed by Nissim Mossek and produced by Sharon Schaveet premiered at the Jerusalem Film Festival where it was received with a standing ovation and a Special Mention by the jury”.

RolandR, please remove your edits on my Wikipedia page (and I see you delete a good few comments from your own page).

cckkab (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests are responded to by admins who are not involved with the content of this page, so they need to be very specific as to what you want changed in the article. The various links and arguments made above do not tell me (an admin entirely unfamiliar with this person and his history) what exactly you want the article to say. Please update the request to include the exact text you want added or changed. Since the request appears to involve controversial material, I would then want to see some discussion demonstrating consensus favoring the request. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can just

1. revert to the last version that I signed off on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezra_Nawi&oldid=442190878.

 Not done Protected edit requests are not a way to get an admin to assist you with edit warring. No way I'm going to wholesale revert to a version from the edit war. You'll need to request particular changes, and if they seem like they might be at all controversial, some additional talk page discussion will be required. I realize that is a tedious way to change an article, but this is what happens when editors choose to edit war. --RL0919 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

2. After “which have landed Nawi in prison twice, in 1997 and 2006” we can add two additional sources http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0730/norrisletter.pdf and http://www.independent.ie/national-news/plumber-nawi-became-an-ardent-campaigner-for-palestinian-rights-2836449.html

 Half done I can't put it exactly where you requested since that text doesn't exist in the article right now (per my decline of your first point above). Also, the first link is a scan of a primary source that I would want to see strong consensus for prior to adding to a BLP. However, the second link appears to be an appropriate news source that confirms points made in the current version of the article, so I have added it at a relevant spot. It could be placed to support other items as well, so feel free to request that it be added elsewhere if desired. --RL0919 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

3. Also please remove source (footnote No 6) to the website http://www.citizennawi.com/ (it doesn’t work) and remove the sentences (charged views) that it is supposed to justify (see 2 paragraphs above).

 Not done Appears to be superseded by the archive url request below. --RL0919 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Change title of section “1992 conviction” to “Sex and drugs convictions”.

Not sure This request appears to be based on the assumption that the article as a whole would be reverted to the earlier version, which isn't being done. That said, I'm open to changing section header if there is consensus for it. (Which presumably requires getting more editors involved in this discussion.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

More generally this ought to be a very straightforward entry – this is just an ordinary guy who has some criminal convictions, later had some publicity for political activism, and is now in the limelight for an association with an Irish presidential hopeful. Nothing more. The article just needs known, certain facts and sources. Nothing more. As for user RolandR, he has a history of similar incidents on the Israeli and radical topics to his credit, possibly with accomplices. Some action here looks warranted, to help avoid further discredit on Wikipedia in English. Thanks for all. cckkab (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The site citizennawi.com, referred to in footnote 6, is archived at the Wayback Machine. I will make a proper edit request for this change. If you want to make a complaint about my behaviour, this is not the place for it. Take it to the appropriate forum. RolandR (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}In footnote 6 a & b in the article, please replace the broken link with the archived version.[2] RolandR (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

RL0919 just did it for you. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't unlink that more quickly. I'm going through the other edit requests from earlier in the section, and it is taking longer than I expected. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No complaints; I figured that you'd forgotten, and there's no shame in that. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Replies to the various requests above. I would suggest that any future requests be put in new talk page sections so as not to make the threading of this section too confusing. --RL0919 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Still no mention of Nawi's sex and drugs convictions since 1992

There is now no one disputing the facts, nor the sources. I suggested reverting to a version where the facts were clear, with suitable prominence. If administrators want to side with RolandR with a track record of controversy and banning, than I accept that verdict (24-hour editing bans by the way for people with an agenda and accomplices don’t seem to be adequate penalties). Our interest here should just be in getting the facts out with the best sources possible, as ever with Wikipedia. Instead accepting RolandR’s requests for protection is making an ass of Wikipedia for anybody looking up this topic. I've never edited before Israeli/gay/sex/ themes. I'm disappointed at the opposition to the facts and sources appearing here. But in due time, other good Wikipedians will doubtless get the facts out there, as they usually end up doing. cckkab (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting rewriting of recent history: "accepting RolandR’s requests for protection is making an ass of Wikipedia" vs "RolandR, I am asking the administrators to protect the page". RolandR (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting twist to this saga (of no relevance to the edits though). I presume that those trying to prevent mention of Nawi’s criminal conviction do so as he has been latterly a pro-Palestinian militant. But the case about the 1992 rape was taken by a Palestinian family against someone they saw as an Israeli (and no obvious proof of militancy at the time), in a position of influence over the 15-year old (at the time). cckkab (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am obviously not acceptable as a reliable source; but I remember Ezra Nawi as an activist from the late 1980s. The under-age sex case may relate to an incident in 1992, but the trial does not seem to have occurred until 1997, by which time Nawi's partner (who does not appear to have been a party to the case) would have been in his 20s. RolandR (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular agenda on the Israel/Palestinian issue, but I just came here from the article David Norris (politician), and I think it's pretty surreal that Nawi's 1997 conviction is mentioned in that article but not this one. Yes, WP:BLP prevents us adding poorly-sourced controversial information to articles about living people, but this information is not poorly sourced - it's received extensive coverage from the media of several countries recently due to the connection with Norris' Presidential campaign. The links provided elsewhere in this article demonstrate that, and provide sufficient reliable sourcing for a statement like 'Nawi was convicted in 1997 of the statutory rape of a then-underage Palestinian boy in 1992'. I don't see how that could be a violation of BLP; and quite frankly, keeping it out of the article at the moment is making Wikipedia look silly. Robofish (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the situation is even stranger than I first thought - this source[3], which mentions the 1997 conviction, is in the article, but the main text of the article makes no mention of it. If that source is good enough for use in the article, what's the justification for not mentioning the conviction in the text? Robofish (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember Nawi as quite a striking figure, not a face you forget. This is some 30 years ago so memories blurred. I remember clearly Nawi’s friend, [David Norris] at different protest meetings at the time (anti-apartheid was the big one, Palestine came later). But can’t remember if Nawi there. Anyway, it is not attending the occasional protest that makes your militancy worthy of Wiki attention. For Nawi in Israel, that came some 10 years after he acquired drugs and sex criminal convictions (in the mid 2000s). Rather unfortunate that it should all boomerang back now. Nawi has maybe more than purged any wrongdoing, and is a great guy for a good cause. Still the facts are the facts and should be open and be reported in a neutral way. I suppose to get this page moving again, it’ll get some motivated administrator(s) to fix this page – it won’t be me. RolandR, you seem to have come across a few? And could you please have the decency to remove from my talk page (I’m asking you again)- “Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information… as you did to Ezra Nawi. “ Thx cckkab (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WELL DONE!! The WP page is now probably the least informed and least useful source of any information on this guy! I did not think WP could get any worse than it was a few years ago: now it has. Congralations on your complete fuckup.

While the above contributor has probably never read WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:CIVIL, let alone WP:BLP, he or she is not exactly wrong. Current state of this article is bizzare in the extreme! 121.74.159.205 (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Really all that is required is one or both of the following: 1) a clear and specific edit request to add a neutral and sourced statement about any convictions (not "revert to my preferred version"), or 2) a clear indication from Cckkab and RolandR that they will respect WP:BRD and not edit-war over this content, in which case the page can be unprotected and no edit requests will be needed. --RL0919 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any disagreement over the facts; certainly not now. There was never any difference over points of view or interpretation, just the facts - did Nawi have criminal convictions, or was there not enough evidence. Before last weekend, for anyone that cared to look, there were several newspaper sources in Hebrew/English citing convictions (if in no great detail), plus court transcripts (the recent civil rights ones) briefly referring to earlier cases (some 10 years earlier) (I did not however uncover exact transcripts of the 1990s case, but only after a some 30-minutes search ). Since then, we have the David Norris letter and radio interviews which reveal quite some detail about Nawi’s 1997 case for a 1992 rape incident. There is now no contest from RolandR or anyone else about the facts.

I don’t think the Nawi article deserves much coverage or that any of the cases deserve much detail. All rather unremarkable. The civil rights demos do get disproportionate coverage, but I/we can let that go if it remains factual.

The original complaint taken by RolandR sking for protection can be seen here What intrigues me (new to Israel/gay issues and to warring) is how someone with a clear history of warring / mischief / bans can be listened to by an administrator, and on a purely factual case (no PoVs) where a 5-minute search would easily have permitted verification of sources. Clearly administrators have a good deal of responsibility when they come to deciding to go with one version of a page or another, and for such a long time (14 days here), and without checking how matters evolve after.

What intrigues me too is how Wikipedia can protect itself – clearly 1-day bans are not dissuasive. But I guess we all have better things to be doing than chasing mischief makers (which they know). cckkab (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I repeat that I did not ask for protection of this article. Cckkab did. Please stop making this unfounded assertion.RolandR (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat my call for editors here to either make edit requests or behave in a way that indicates the page could be unprotected. It appears that multiple people agree that there was conviction in 1997, and there are what appear to be reliable sources for this. If none of the involved editors of the page is able to formulate a neutral statement of this, I could give it a shot myself, but it would really be better if you could come up with something amongst yourselves. --RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

New source

Today's Irish Independent has an article by their legal editor, "I am not a paedophile, says Norris ex-partner", in which Nawi states that "the boy assured him he was over 16". The article also states that "the prosecution struggled from the outset to make a case against Nawi as the victim was reluctant to give evidence", that the original prosecution had not been widely reported in Israel, and that neither the judge nor the attorney general had any recollection of the case. These facts and the three month sentence tend to confirm that Nawi was not regarded as a paedophile or rapist, and that the incident was not regarded as a serious crime but rather as a minor misdemeanour. This helps explain why we have struggled to find reliable sources for the story; and also (though this is outside the scope of this article) leads one to wonder how the blogger first came across this. If we are to add material on the conviction, this article should certainly be used as a major source. RolandR (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the August 4 article cited by Roland (above) is complete and definite enough to be used as a source for a neutral statement in the article. I invite the editors here to reach agreement on wording that would be added to the article. If agreement can be reached, that might allow the article to be unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cover Up

The leftwing mob that dominates Wikipedia has so far been able to cover up the fact that this man is a convicted child molestor who served time in prison and just brought down the front runner in the race for the Irish presidency. Amazing. 68.230.131.75 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn’t use such charged words. You could argue that it is “left wing” i.e. progressive, to actually report the facts (exploitation of someone less powerful in 1992/1997 case). The explanation for the mess-up might be simple – an administrator who maybe only spent a minute or so on the case, and a complainant who could be better at sussing out sources (if RolandR were just to click on the last link I presented above, he’d see the complaint that he – not me – did make to the administrator! Incontrovertible proof). When you go back through a person’s profile though, and see incident after incident, then you do begin to wonder. Still, probably the best explanation is that we editors are a bunch of amateurs and part timers, with little time, incentive, or power to deal with recurrent stupidities.

Yet another (similar story to above) can be found here. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/robin-hood-to-some-a-convicted-rapist-to-others-2839378.html Again I think the Nawi article should be short. None of the events – even if salacious – are worthy of in-depth treatment, which would only serve to give them more significance than they are worth. The treatment on the Nawi page in Irish (ga) I found quite adequate, all the more so as the refs are rich and well documented (with several sources available for anybody that both knew how to look and bothered prior to last weekend). cckkab (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop claiming untruthfully that I requested protection of this page. I did not; I requested that you be sanctioned for edit-warring and breach of the policy on biographies of living persons. The admin -- with whom I have had no contact regarding this -- decided independently to protect the page; which was what you requested.. RolandR (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have lifted the protection to allow normal editing to resume:

• The article was originally protected on 30 July per this thread at AN3.
• Several people are now watching the article, including admins
• The discussion has made some progress
• Better quality news articles have appeared that present a more complete story of Nawi's legal problems (some of the articles are mentioned above).

Please note the the article remains under WP:1RR per WP:ARBPIA. Any summary of Nawi's past convictions should be carefully worded with a view to neutrality. This article risks becoming a football in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I continue to see the major concern as WP:BLP. Any renewed edit warring on material that is risky under BLP will be viewed dimly. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Videos

I came across his work while watching a video on Youtube, which now has a small library of filmed episodes where the reader can judge for himself. Perhaps links to several of these would improve the page? Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of issues

There are a few issues in the lead I don't have time to deal with, so I thought I'd point them out here and leave it to other editors to fix if they so wish.

• The article says "where Palestinian residents have for years been attacked by Israeli settlers". This generalization is not directly supported by either of the sources provided. I think it would be ok without the "for years".
• "During the incident, which was filmed and broadcast on Israel's Channel 1, Nawi can be seen non-violently resisting the demolition of the home before being taken into custody" is sourced to an editorial by a supportive activist. Not quite a RS.
• "Despite the video evidence" editorializing (I suppose this is also based on the aforementioned editorial).
• "the judge was presented with over 100,000 letters supporting Nawi" the source here quite clearly says there was an online petition signed by 20,000 people, as does the independent.ie link provided in a section above. Not "100,000 letters".

Enjoy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked point 4, but you are correct that the language in 2,3 should be rephrased to WP:NPOV, since it definitely espouses a POV. As to point 1, the amount of documentation, academic books,B'tselem reports, HRW monographs, videos, CPT newsletters, Israeli newspaper articles, right or left, describing the rather 'peculiar' approach of settlers to the traditional occupiers of the land in that specific area of the West Bank is huge. It's hardly controversial. It's been a feature of the landscape since the 1980s. If anything 'residents ' is POV since it implies that the indigenous people there have the status of Palestinian Jerusalemites, i.e. residency permits. Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked almost everything against the sources, employed also some new ones. If there are any other problems, let me know asap.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Lead, perhaps it would be a good idea to replace the wikilinked word rape with the wilkilinked phrase statutory rape, that being what Nawri was convicted of.     ←   ZScarpia   21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree - there is a big difference between stat rape and rape and rape should not be linked to in the lede or anywhere else in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This may be premature. I've thoroughly revised the page, tripled its length, added a considerable number of new sources, and kept an eye out for POV, WP:BLP and other problems. As it now stands, I wonder if editors could agree on ridding it of the POV tag? If there are problems, by all means, let them be listed so that they can be addressed expeditiously. A POV tag hanging round for 2 years without any work being done on the page, shouldn't just stick there because we (a) dislike the person or (b) prefer the slough of eternal stagnation in the evaluation of pages in controversial areas.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of stuff written in the encyclopedia's neutral voice is sourced to Nawi's friend Shulman. That can't be good for NPOV. That's without going into the general tone of this article which doesn't seem to be neutral at all. Nawi is quoted extensively, his supporters are quoted and used as sources, his prior conviction of statutory rape is mentioned in an "aftermath" section which doesn't mention Norris withdrawing his candidacy, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I don't know who added all these refs to Shulman but it's atrocious encyclopedic writing. I've made my revert for the day, so I'll go ahead and tag all the Shulmans with Template:POV-statement.—Biosketch (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cats

Although I replaced it Israeli sex offenders was removed with the comment - cat seems to have been invented for this person - but its normal to have sex offenders by country just that the cat was deleted a couple of months ago because it was empty - this subject seems to fit in it quite well. Another comment on its removal was that other cats have been ignored, what are the other Cats that are being ignored, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Israeli sex offenders. Odd. Only Ezra Nawi is there. Well, immediately Moshe Katzav came to mind. I checked, and his cat is Category:Israeli rapists, created by Amoruso in 2006. An existing category was there, but you created the another CAT just for Nawi. I supposed someone now is going to add that as well. I believe in Ockham's razor, and not in multiplying categories and cats. And were you being coherent, you should have googled wiki on rapists and added that category to the two public figures there. That is why your CAT activity here looks odd. And you did it before discussing it, as an admin asks us to do, on this issue, with other editors. You acted, reverted, and then, fait accompli, ask others to 'discuss'.This is an open invitation to crowd in new CATS: Israeli pedophile, Israeli sodomists, Israeli homosexuals convicted of raping Palestinians, etc.etc. etc. Not exemplary editing on a difficult page.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose all those cats that you mention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I added Category:Israeli sex offenders and Category:Statutory rapists - imo he belongs without any controversy in both. I recreated the Israeli sex offender cat because it was deleted in May because it was empty - it is normal for only one or two people to be in those cats by country, see Category:Sex_offenders_by_nationality - Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't realize I was stepping in some wiki tension I was just bumping around - I didn't see the arbitration template one RR and have reverted all my contributions to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exemplary. And I apologize for any misunderstandings. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I am open to joining in any discussion going forward but my basic position is the two cats I added, unless anyone wants me to comment more I am removing the article from my watchlist. As a parting comment because it seems that Nishidani is pointing towards the Category:Israeli_rapists , I oppose this cats inclusion strongly as stat rapist according to the current article content is the specific conviction. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

admin edit request

Template:Editnotices/Page/Ezra Nawi - create this and add the below.

{{editnotice|image=[[file:Stop hand nuvola.svg|50px]]|text=<big>'''WARNING</big><br>In accordance with [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies]], editors of this article are restricted to 1 [[help:reverting|revert]] per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.}}

• - Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about not wanting to surprise people who are unaware of the 1RR. I've added the edit notice as requested. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah great, if your not involved in a sector/topic its possible to not see the talkpage notice until after being a bit bold. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for discussion

I think the user is clearly worthy of inclusion in the statutory rapist category. Please post objections or support reasons here - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

is this an undue claim

He re-entered public attention in summer 2011, with the emergence of his ex-lover and Irish Presidential hopeful David Norris's attempts to reduce his sentence for the 1992 statutory rape of a Palestinian boy in 1997.[6]

I am seeing a Daily Mail article - is there more reporting of this Norris issue, is it really a major notability in this subjects life or is it more of a coatrack of the recent high profile of Norris? These attempts from Norris were from a decade ago, the offense was two decades ago? Nawi became notable again in 2011 because his prior lover from twenty years ago was a political candidate??? I don't support this in the lede and suggest moving it to the section related to the offense. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of coverage of this in Irish and Israeli newspapers. Not so much elsewhere. Do a google news search on "Ezra Nawi". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well - could you present a case for inclusion in the lede - if a case is not presented here - I want to remove that content, I did a quick google smoogle and little reliable jumped up please present your case for inclusion in the lede - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are several hundred news articles dealing with this. The main issue is of course Norris rather than Nawi, but he's mentioned in practically all of them, usually with the information that he was convicted of statutory rape. This is certainly less undue than the line about the Guardian editorial that's in the lead now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the lead, we're relying on an article by David Shulman for making judgments as to Nawi's character, in spite of the fact that Shulman is a biased party. He testified on Nawi's behalf in court in 2009. That sentence needs to be taken out per WP:BLP – "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content."—Biosketch (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"An editorial in The Guardian has called him 'a rarity, even among that most endangered of species, the Israeli peace activist."[5] - Editorial opinionated comments in the lede that are actually nothing to do with the subject are undue and after you commented I was going to remove it also - there are Israeli peace activists as normal in all countries - If no one objects I will remove it tomorrow. The actual policy compliant addition is - Ezra Nawi is an Israeli peace activist.[5] - Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Peace activist or human rights activist (or both I guess) seems about right. The "exponent of Gandhian civil disobedience" bit also seems somewhat over the top. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY

For some reason Nableezy (talk · contribs) reverted my addition of an external link to the official document of the court case involving Ezra Nawi back in 2009. WP:BLPPRIMARY makes it clear that "trial transcripts and other court records" aren't to be used "to support assertions about a living person." As an external link, the document is not being used in any way other than to link to it from the article, which is entirely natural given that this is an encyclopedia. Policy at WP:BLPPRIMARY also says, "When an article summarizes secondary source material which in turn refers to its primary source, a link to that primary source may be added as a reference." Much of this article makes reference to the 2009 trial, wherefore we're complying with policy by adding the link to the document as an external link.—Biosketch (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Which secondary source refers to the primary source? They may refer to the trial, they dont refer to the court documents. Also, BLP requires that you gain consensus for edits removed as BLP violations prior to restoring them, dont revert that again without such consensus. BLPPRIMARY says the following: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". I dont care about anything else on this page except its compliance with BLP. Yall can fight over other stuff to your hearts content, I dont care. But BLP is not a policy that you can try to play games with. nableezy - 13:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your revert yesterday violated 1RR, so you'll probably want to self-revert. Beyond that, though, you've also failed to explain how the trial transcript is being used "to support assertions about a living person."—Biosketch (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an exception for reverts on BLP grounds. And your revert violated BLP, which requires that you gain consensus prior to reverting any edit made on BLP grounds. nableezy - 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the trial is covered by secondary sources, and we even have quotes from testimony given in court in support of Nawi in the article, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason not to include the transcript. From what I understand it can be included as a reference if we have secondary source coverage (which we do), but there's certainly no reason not to put it in an external links section.

Since discussing it here will probably go nowhere, I suggest taking this to the BLP noticeboard. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nableezy(WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person; per blp see talk) " I have no idea what BLP is, but a policy that says you can't mention the Norris letter to the courts about Nawi as a source seems mad in the extreme. So much better than any newspaper article. Quite disappointing on the whole to see that the article is an eulogy of Mr Nawi, and almost no mention of his criminal convictions. There are also some unsourced claims e.g. "In his youth, Nawi was active in a communist youth movement and he became politically active after the outbreak of the First Intifada in the 1980s." cckkab (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know what BLP is, you really should consider whether you should be editing this page at all. This is one of the central policies of Wikipedia; and, as Nableezy notes, it states explicitly " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". You may think that this is "mad in the extreme", but you are nonetheless bound by it. And this is not the place to challenge or question this policy. If you want to change it, you should raise this at the BLP talk page. RolandR (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP also says "When an article summarizes secondary source material which in turn refers to its primary source, a link to that primary source may be added as a reference". This article includes direct quotes from the trial sourced to a secondary source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No secondary source cited refers to the transcript, and we have no reason to believe that they referred to it. Unless you can establish that this primary source itself was consulted by the secondary sources on which we rely, then you cannot include it. RolandR (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, because even if none of the secondary sources used in the article refer to the court document, a reference isn't a precondition for including the link in the External links section according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. The only justification for removing the link was if it was used "to support assertions about a living person." Nableezy (talk · contribs) or RolandR (talk · contribs) need to establish what assertion the link is supporting, which they haven't done.

Also, remember that this is a collaborative project. You shouldn't be discouraging Cckkab (talk · contribs) from contributing to this article. You should be encouraging him to read WP:BLP and contribute to the article.—Biosketch (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) up on his proposal, I've initiated a discussion relating to our disagreement at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Ezra_Nawi (diff).

OK, I understand the BLP now. The idea is to protect the subject from 1) the publication of information that might be considered private; 2) more generally, original research (not the role of Wikipedia), etc. The policy is quite reasonable. So "When an article summarizes secondary source material which in turn refers to its primary source, a link to that primary source may be added as a reference." So there are ample newspapers that refer to the Norris letter providing quite some detail on Nawi's life at the time. And there is no difficulty listing the letter as a source. Stunning that none of this makes it into the Nawi page (yet). cckkab (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

UK Gay News

I've tagged the two UK Gay News refs with Template:Verify credibility. We want to avoid a conflict of interests, and citing UK Gay News as a secondary source for information on Nawi without making it clear who the source is bad scholarship. I also doubt if this is a credible journalistic source to begin with. You expect a news source to have an About page where you can read about its background, staff, and so on. I see nothing of the sort at UKGN. If someone feels otherwise, this or WP:RSN is the place for them to make their case.—Biosketch (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Supportezra.net

Someone needs to remove the ref to the Supportezra.net advocacy website pronto. #32, towards the bottom of the article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RolandR (talk · contribs), do you seriously mean to tell me you think that Supportezra.net meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES? And why didn't you at any time during the last two days leave a comment here if you objected to the removal of that source? Why wait for me to do it and then revert?—Biosketch (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of sources for the sentence that you removed. For the record, you removed the following: Nawi's case elicited the attention of several prominent international figures, including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Charles Glass, Sheldon Pollock, Neve Gordon and Elle Flanders, who organized a campaign to protest what they view as his politically motivated arrest, conviction, and pending imprisonment. Neve Gordon wrote about this in The Guardian directly citing the website, and Ha'aretz had a story that said, in part, that Since Nawi's conviction, Professor Noam Chomsky, author Naomi Klein and Dr. Neve Gordon have been conducting an international campaign to prevent his imprisonment. The JPost had an article on the petition put together by Jewish Voices for Peace that mentions Chomsky's support. nableezy - 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And since there has been no dispute that these sources back up the sentence (or much of it) and are reliable, Ill be re-adding that now. nableezy - 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

a few issues (again)

1. I find the new reference formatting style cumbersome and much less easy to use than the normal way it's done on wikipedia (Why would I need to click twice to get to a newspaper article? Why does the same ref need to appear multiple times in the list instead of using a name and collecting them all into one line?) Can we talk about this or has it been decided from above? I don't want to outright revert and get a lecture about the "working class", but I don't think this is an improvement.
2. There are too many opinion pieces, editorials and self published sources being used here. Mostly by Nawi's friends and fellow activists. Usually unattributed and stated in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. For example Shulman (in 9 places), a Guardian editorial (twice), Peter Tatchell (twice), Joseph Dana and Richard Silverstein.
3. The quote from Karp (whom we learn twice is a former Israeli deputy attorney general) does not talk specifically about Nawi and is just political soapboxing that doesn't belong in the article.
4. The long quote from Nawi in the 2007 arrest and trial section (some of which is block, some isn't) is also UNDUE political soapboxing that doesn't belong here.
5. The long quote from Shulman hidden between ref tags (currently ref 29) is quite unnecessary to support the 3 words it's ostensibly a ref for.
6. Same for the hidden Karp quote in ref 39.
7. Shulamn's Gandhi thing doesn't belong in the lead. It's enough to say he's a controversial figure.

That's it for now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The tendency is for every editor to format as he prefers, which creates an extremely ugly appearance, and that also gives readers the impression no one much cares to edit a page from top to bottom, but just drops in, with his own citational style, for the bit that interests him.
2. You disliked GayNews though it was probably right and the NYTs wrong. I left the probably incorrect RS in, and removed the politically incorrect but better informed (on this) GayRights org out. I removed Silverstein. There are no rules saying how much a source can be quoted. Shulman is an area expert, having a prizewining Chicago Uni book on that area to his credit. The other objections are baseless, since they are reliably sourced.
3. She is talking directly of the Nawi case, at the Nawi trial. If Haaretz's reports a deputy attorney general's comments at a trial, where the subject of the article is the defendent, those remarks are perfectly at home here, and impeccably sourced.
4. The world tabloid press threw hundreds of articles at him over this. Where is the wiki policy that says the subject of an article cannot be quoted in his own defence, when we have a section on his trial?
5. It's illustrative. And the statement explains the context of the incident, which otherwise, unadorned, would appear like some squatter's shacks being knocked down by the government. Reader's have a right to know that they are sheds built on private Palestinian land, with legal title, demolished by a belligerent occupying power. It's known in Israel, I don't see why it must be hidden from the world, which is not familiar with these 'niceties'.
6. Same reply.
7. Translation. You can call Nawi a 'troublemaker' in the lead, but not a 'non-violent activist'. It's balanced to give both POVs so we obtain WP:NPOV- Your suggestion would retain only the settler-IDF POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the new reference structure to be a great improvement, though you are right that the same ref should be named and grouped in the reference list. I have fixed that. nableezy - 18:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the bullets to numbers so the conversation is easier to follow, and moved your comments all into one place. Please don't put your comments in the middle of mine.

1. The one you chose seems cumbersome to me. It requires additional clicks without adding any benefit for the reader or the editor.
2. I questioned if GayNews is a RS per wikipedia policy. We have policies here. The objections are not baseless when you're using op-eds, not attributing them and not noting that these are friends of the article subject.
3. She is talking at the Nawi trial but not about Nawi. Her political soapboxing does not belong in this article.
4. He is not speaking in his defense here, he is giving his political opinions about what other people have done in other times at other places. How is this relevant to the article other than giving a platform for his politics?
5. Again, it is not directly relevant to Nawi and is an obvious attempt to insert political opinions through the back door.
6. Same reply.
7. I meant both should be removed, not just the Ghandi thing. It's enough to say in the lead that he's controversial without going into what each side thinks of him.

@Nableezy: Could you elaborate a bit on how you think it's an improvement? Why would you consider a reader having to click on a ref number just to get something like "Shulman (2009)" and then have to click again to get to the actual link to the ref an improvement over clicking the ref number and arriving directly at the link? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it a. looks better in the references section, and b. is easy to edit around as it reduces the size of the reference tags in the text. But I will admit that the main reason, imo at least, to use shortened footnotes is if you have the same reference but are citing different pages. That isnt the case here so that cause is not valid. But I still think it just looks better. Subjective sure, but you asked for my opinion and there it is. nableezy - 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You've reorganized so that the points you raise and the rejoinders are so detached they are incomprehensible, except perhaps to yourself, in my view. You appear not to have noted that I removed GayNews, and explained the damage that does to Israel's justice system. I removed it because of wiki policy, not in defiance of the same. It is no argument to challenge relevant comments on a trial by an experienced deputy attorney in Israel, on an Israeli case dealing with the subject of the article as an instance of WP:SOAP. That is what poor editors tend to do. All these articles have opinions on a subject expressed by relevant parties. The point you raise is incomprehensible in policy terms, as far as I can see. Shulman is explaining to outsiders how the law operates in these particular cases, and what he says is not his 'opinion' but what a hundred sources, or any Israeli newspaper will tell you is the case. Of course one can argue that we should just have. 'Nawi was put on trial, and convicted and fined', but no wiki article does that. If it does, stripping down as you advise everything to a sequence of bare facts, bulleted, no one would edit it, let alone read it. Your objections appear to be instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since I see no policy basis, let alone evidence from comparable pages that what is done here is somehow unusual.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the format, as I said, one of the universal complaints is that wiki's pages are damnably uncoordinated, since most editors just play with or tinker with a word or sentence or a source, without regard to the overall structure of pages. If I work a page, I try to read it from top to bottom, reorganize it so it is not an eyesore, and see to it that the citational formats are uniform. It's sheer drudgery, but someone has to clean up these messes of conflicted formatting eventually. Better at the outset than later, which is never.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having trouble following the conversation now. This is how it's usually done on talk pages. It makes it clear who is making what comment.

What Karp thinks about the Israeli government enforcing laws with regards to Palestinians is not relevant to Nawi's trial about resisting arrest and hitting a police officer. She was there as a character witness. What Shulman thinks about Um al-Kheir belongs in that article, not as a lengthy quote between ref tags ostensibly there to support the claim that the village is a few meters from Carmel but in fact is a very transparent attempt to put information that is not relevant to Nawi into the article.

It is possible to describe the trial and the opinions of people involved with it without going into long tangential quotes whose sole purpose is SOAP and that do not speak directly about the trial or Nawi. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of guidelines relevant to this discussion:

WP:IBID - "Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, compliant to copyright (including fair use where applicable), of use or interest to the reader, and not used as an evasion of other guidance (most notably: content policy). Where there is disagreement on the use of quotations in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page for that article."

WP:CITECONSENSUS - "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."

WP:CITEVAR - "If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with issues of spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

I'm sure there's also one that says that content added to an article must be relevant to the subject of the article, but can't find it at the moment. More to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How generic! What's the wiki policy angle on editors who just hang round the rockface and, after the navvies have exhausted themselves digging up the coal, making the fire, and cooking for all, bystanders included, a rough but filling dinner, then, after tasting everything, whinge about the lack of warmth, the poor cutlery, and voice their suspicion that the food provided doesn't quite suit their taste, and that they want something else? Nishidani (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I made you dinner! I don't care if you're not hungry or are allergic to my POV cuisine! Eat it and be thankful, you ungrateful oppressor!

Let me know when you want to talk about fixing the article. I'm not going to revert the changes you made to the citations, but now you know to ask next time before making such a large change.

Do you want to cut down the stuff not relevant to the article in the footnotes and quotes, or do you want me to do it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think in terms of method that one should build up a page, search for the widest rnge of sources, before trimming down. Experience suggests that if one gets too nitpickety at the outset of a stub, other editors get disenchanted, wander off, and nothing substantive gets done. I've made several significant adjustments to negative comments so far, as anyone can see. But I have roughly 40 pages of notes to run through before I will be able to climb down from the scaffolding, and join the lads below for a once-or twice-over to see how it looks, what corners are to be rebricked, what windows adjusted, what rooms to be expanded, or subdivided, etc. Be patient for a few days, and then by all means challenge it. I don't think the template challenge profitable. I've done it on several articles, and no one has thought this unwieldy or problematical. On one indeed, it was the foundation for what became an FA article. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As with McGirk now, I prefer at the early drafting stage to add text to footnotes to allow browsing editors to access rapidly the material sources provide. As we revise later, this can either be integrated or dispensed with, as per consensus. The important thing is to get the evidence on page for each assertion.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting a bit before making any changes but as long as you're editing in mainspace the article has to conform with wikipedia policy. Perhaps you should build the article in your userspace using whatever methods you feel most comfortable with, then move it over when you're done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I've been here 5 years, and built a large number of articles from zero. I wrote this offline in 2 days, Aug-9-10, in my own 'user-space'. In other words, what you are advising me to do happens to be exactly what I did.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fully support the new citation style. There is really no argument in favour of the previous style, except that, with the current editing interface, it is quick and easy for editors to generate in-text citations. Though easy for the editor adding the cite, the result is to leave an incomprehensible, uneditable mess for everyone else. There is another argument in favour of moving citation templates out of the text body, and that is server load. The citation templates are large, complicated, and (relatively) costly in server load. This doesn't matter in most cases, but when they run into the hundreds, they can slow down the loading of the page very considerably (but not for non-logged in editors or most readers, who get the page quickly from the cache server). This cost is minimised when there is a single template for a book, and separate references to that single template for each page number in the book. It is true that there is a slight cost to the {{harvnb}} template, but this is much, much, less than the cost of a cite template, and more than compensated by the ability to click onwards to the main cite. My personal preference is to move book and peer-reviewed journal cites into a separate bibliography/references section, and to use list-defined references for everything else. Either way moves the citation clutter out of the text body. It's a real joy to be able to edit text free from citation clutter. I recommend it, just try it! --NSH001 (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of moot at this point, but I think the new style is less comfortable for the reader and since most articles don't use it, might even be confusing. Moreover, since most editors use cite templates and ref tags, in a short while this is going to be a jumble of several different footnote styles which editors who are not familiar with the harvnb template might find confusing. I'm not sure server load should be a major consideration, at least not in articles that don't have potential to be unusually large in terms of text or footnotes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that server load is not a major consideration for this article as it currently stands. You will find that this citation style is much more common in FA articles, which are usually heavily referenced, and where it does become more relevant. And, who knows, this article might even reach FA one day. But the main argument is the ease of editing text without citation clutter, and (a personal view) it looks much more professional, and closer to citation standards in academic works. --NSH001 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No one complained at FA. People who wish to edit with their usual templates, will be helped out by having their references adapted to the standard model here. I'll do it, no sweat.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make much of a difference to me -- I don't find this person interesting in any which way -- but I support Nishidani's proposed citation style for real articles that utilize as sources multiple pages within books. But this amateurish pseudo-article, with sources based on silly one page op-eds, in no way needs the double-clicking Harvard citation style. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am always ready to learn. Could you show me any of the undoubtedly many I/P pages where your 'professional' abilities as a writer, from top-to-bottom, of 'real articles' is brilliantly displayed, so that I can pick up pointers and improve my contributions here? Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your response is both childish and illogical. Didn't intend to make this personal though, and I apologize, I had no idea who the main contributors were. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pics

worth searching around to see if there are any pics on the area generally of Umm-Kheir, the settlements, and the people, the trial etc.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Queries

I've gone through a first revision and expansion (6-39 kb) of the original article, and would appreciate if a list of things lacking, or points to be queried, or 'problems' of a specific kind could be provided so I can rush through tweak, cut or expand the version I am presenting as the basis for the article. I say this because edit wars are commonplace, and can mostly be avoided if the main editor who has undertaken a review can be given a concrete list of things to do or consider doing, before the free-for-all of 'normal editing' recommences. I have taken several objections into consideration already, removing challenged sources etc., and would appreciate the opportunity to iron out anything that may have slipped through my guard. Thanks! Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time at the moment to give a full list (maybe tomorrow), but there are a lot of places where information from opinion pieces is stated in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, too many quotes to the point of UNDUE which I think should be summarized, "Prior brushes with the law" seems somewhat euphemistic (and prior to what? We don't know until we read the next section). I'll make a more detailed post when I have a bit of time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Imput on a wording technicality

The lead has:

He came to international attention after being convicted in 2007 of participating in a riot and allegedly assaulting two police.

a. first the sentence is illogical. It says he was convicted of participating in a riot, and then said (he was convicted of) 'allegedly' assaulting two police(men).

b. If he was convicted you cannot say the second item was 'allegedly' done.

In my view, whatever my view, or those of sources, one cannot say 'allegedly' of acts that have passed a juridical judgement (unless they are still under appeal in a higher court of law.

The sentence should read, for logic, and obedience to the facts:-

He came to international attention after being convicted in 2007 of participating in a riot and assaulting two police.

I haven't checked what late sources say specifically on this, but will. if they support in 2011, retrospectively, we would have a problem. For the moment I will erase 'allegedly'.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Videos

I've been watching videos of these incidents for several years, on Youtube and specialist CPT sites, etc. What is their status. Can one put some into an 'External References' section? The advantage is that one can judge for oneself, without journalistic intrusions. Many of the incidents mentioned here are actually available as videos on the net. Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerns so far voiced, and answered.

• (1)Not enough on ‘sodomy’ and ‘pedophilia’.

Between full disclosure and zero disclosure, after concerns at WP:BLP, per this thread. I think I have struck a balance that is acceptable to both sides. The charge is ‘statutory rape’, not sodomy which is an ambiguous word that lends itself to improper inferences or assumptions about the behaviour of the subject, as noted on the relevant page in the discussion. done.

• (2)Reference to proNawi website asked to be removed (http://www.citizennawi.com/).

done.

• (a) ‘More generally this ought to be a very straightforward entry – this is just an ordinary guy who has some criminal convictions, later had some publicity for political activism, and is now in the limelight for an association with an Irish presidential hopeful. Nothing more. The article just needs known, certain facts and sources. Nothing more. As for user RolandR, he has a history of similar incidents on the Israeli and radical topics to his credit, possibly with accomplices. Some action here looks warranted, to help avoid further discredit on Wikipedia in English. Thanks for all. cckkab; (b) Rather unfortunate that it should all boomerang back now. Nawi has maybe more than purged any wrongdoing, and is a great guy for a good cause. Still the facts are the facts and should be open and be reported in a neutral way. I suppose to get this page moving again, it’ll get some motivated administrator(s) to fix this page – it won’t be me.’

RS provide far more detail on this ‘ordinary guy’ and published works contradict the editor’s assumption here. I have filled out the page as requested in (2) done

• ‘Still no mention of Nawi's sex and drugs convictions since 1992.’

done in accordance with WP:BLP.

• ’I don’t think the Nawi article deserves much coverage or that any of the cases deserve much detail. All rather unremarkable’.

cckkab’s request, now seconded by Brewcrewer. Unfortunately book sources like that of Shulman cover his work in extenso.

• The article says "where Palestinian residents have for years been attacked by Israeli settlers". This generalization is not directly supported by either of the sources provided. (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

RS now adduced amply document this as a fact, films exist of most incidents discussed. Acaemic sources abound which state in detail the occasions where many attacks took place. These are in the article. done

• "During the incident, which was filmed and broadcast on Israel's Channel 1, Nawi can be seen non-violently resisting the demolition of the home before being taken into custody" is sourced to an editorial by a supportive activist. Not quite a RS.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

Neve Gordon, an Israeli scholar writing for The Guardian, fits the requirements of WP:RS. The Guardian provides a video of the incident. The second sentence has been changed to make it clear this is Gordon’s interpretation of the event ‘According to Neve Gordon, the verdict was made notwithstanding 'the very clear evidence' captured on film’ done

• ‘Despite the video evidence" editorializing (I suppose this is also based on the aforementioned editorial).’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

The phrase has been elided to avoid editorializing. The source is now McGirk’s article in Time magazine. done

• ’"the judge was presented with over 100,000 letters supporting Nawi" the source here quite clearly says there was an online petition signed by 20,000 people, as does the independent.ie link provided in a section above. Not "100,000 letters".’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

The assertion is sourced directly to Nawi’s remarks in The Nation, and a source given for 20,000 people. done

• A lot of stuff written in the encyclopedia's neutral voice is sourced to Nawi's friend Shulman. That can't be good for NPOV. (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

Shulman as a proportion is now much reduced, given the addition of two dozen further sources. Unfortunately, Shulman has to his (dis)credit an impeccably academic work on the precise area of contestation where Nawi is active. He is an eyewitness to many of the events narrated That he is Nawi’s friend is neither here nor there. Now one here questions Schlesinger as a source on Kennedy because they were friends, etc. done

• ’it's atrocious encyclopedic writing.’ User:Biosketch.

One completely neutral admin (Ed Johnson), asked to review the rewrite, registered the (subjective) opinion it now reads well. done

• I'll go ahead and tag all the Shulmans with Template:POV-statement.’ User:Biosketch.

This is a misapprehension about policy. Nothing says that a WP:RS source on a subject, based on eyewitness accounts, and subject to peer-review before publication by a first-class University Press should be hit with ‘POV-statement’ tags wherever cited.done

• ‘He re-entered public attention in summer 2011, with the emergence of his ex-lover and Irish Presidential hopeful David Norris's attempts to reduce his sentence for the 1992 statutory rape of a Palestinian boy in 1997.’ I don't support this in the lede and suggest moving it to the section related to the offense. Off2riorob

Quite true. He came to public and international attention in 2007. I have adjusted to correct the misprision, adducing sources. done

• ’Specifically regarding the lead, we're relying on an article by David Shulman for making judgments as to Nawi's character, in spite of the fact that Shulman is a biased party.’ (User:Biosketch)

The judgement is not of Nawi’s character, but Shulman’s interpretation of the style of his activism. Shulman’s opinion is balanced by a contrasting opinion by an alternative viewpoint source. One ‘biased’ source contrasted with another ‘biased’ source. Since the article focuses on his activism, the two viewpoints require articulation in the lead, which is a summary.done

• ‘An editorial in The Guardian has called him 'a rarity, even among that most endangered of species, the Israeli peace activist."[5] - Editorial opinionated comments in the lede that are actually nothing to do with the subject are undue and after you commented I was going to remove it also - there are Israeli peace activists as normal in all countries .’Off2riorob

Removed. done

• ‘my addition of an external link to the official document of the court case involving Ezra Nawi back in 2009 . removed’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

As some noted, WP:BLP reads: ‘" Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".’ An all too brief discussion on a noticeboard here backed this objection. done

• ’So there are ample newspapers that refer to the Norris letter providing quite some detail on Nawi's life at the time. And there is no difficulty listing the letter as a source’ (cckab)

I have added the letter this morning. done

• ’I've tagged the two UK Gay News refs with Template:Verify credibility.’ User:Biosketch

Complied with. The source has been removed. done

• Someone needs to remove the ref to the Supportezra.net advocacy website pronto. #32, towards the bottom of the article.’ (User:Biosketch)

Complied with The source has been removed. done

• ’I find the new reference formatting style cumbersome’. (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

No one else disagrees with it, two editors approved the choice made.

• There are too many opinion pieces, editorials and self published sources being used here’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

Several opinion pieces have been removed, including Jaradat and Eldin. There is only one self-published source, but it is by Melzer in German. He has an extensive bio on the German wiki, and therefore is notable. He is a Jewish publisher. The breakdown of articles used at the present moment is as follows:-

• 45 sources.
• 2 books conforming to WP:RS
• 1 book review in the NYRB of Shulman by a distinguished Israeli philosopher with direct knowledge of the subject who comments on the area under discussion.
• I article in The Nation in which Nawi presents his case.
• 1 al-Jazeera interview by Jacky Rowland, video with voiceover.
• 3 editorials, one in the Guardian, one in Haaretz, and one in theIrish Times by a legal expert, all generally reviewing the case and the person.
• 3 general overviews of the subject, providing details of Nawi’s whole life and activism in the context of West Bank/Southern Hebron Hills conflict (Luongo, Buruma and McGirk)
• An appeal by Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and Neve Gordon, directly included, since it is referred to in several articles.
• 1 background essay in The Guardian by Daphna Baram on Nawi, important because it was written before the hullabaloo.
• 2 articles by wellknown film critics on the film Citizen Nawi, one with a negative impression, the other with a position evaluation (WP:NPOV)
• 7 articles from Irish sources on Norris and Nawi.
• 23 articles from the Israel Press, Haaretz, Ynet, and foreign newspapers, NYTs, the Guardian, consisting in direct reportage of Nawi’s work on the West Bank, his 2007 trial and its aftermath.

The overwhelming majority of articles are reportage, not opinion pieces or editorials. I think that a reasonable mix. I have elided anything I thought dubious. done

• ’The quote from Karp (whom we learn twice is a former Israeli deputy attorney general) does not talk specifically about Nawi and is just political soapboxing that doesn't belong in the article.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

The quote has been paraphrased in the text. It is not WP:SOAP, since it is cited directly from the trial. You confuse evidence in court, with opinions made by wiki editors. done

• ’ The long quote from Nawi in the 2007 arrest and trial section (some of which is block, some isn't) is also UNDUE political soapboxing that doesn't belong here.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

What a man says in a courtcase we report may be soapboxing, but quoting it is not soapboxing (which is an improper editorial judgement on the content of WP:RS). But I have dequoted it, by paraphrasing his points. done

• ‘The long quote from Shulman hidden between ref tags (currently ref 29) is quite unnecessary to support the 3 words it's ostensibly a ref for. ’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

The quote is four lines, currently ref 29, is not long, and deals with an eyewitness account. Quite innocuous. The only grounds for challenging this are WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

• ’Same for the hidden Karp quote in ref 39.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

Now paraphrased succinctly. done

• ‘Shulamn's Gandhi thing doesn't belong in the lead. It's enough to say he's a controversial figure.’(|No More Mr Nice Guy).

Actually it does, because the whole article deals with the controversy over whether he is an utter bounder and ratbag, or a peace activist who is non-violent. Shulman happens to be one of the world’s foremost academic authorities on Indian civilization, and on Peace movements in Islam there, as well as being an authority on the recent history of clashes in the South Hebron hills. We are all entitled to an opinion, but to say ‘controversial figure’ without clarifying ‘over what’ in the lead is rather censorious in its request for extreme brevity.

• WP:IBID - "Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, . .Where there is disagreement on the use of quotations in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page for that article." (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

Quotes in the footnotes have been revised or removed to meet this concern. Those surviving are there in order to allow editors to see the textual basis on which passages thought controversial are based, or because the sources cited are foreign languages (Spanish/German). There is one quote or Karp in the footnotes remaining. I do not see a consensus for its removal.done

• (a)WP:CITECONSENSUS - "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." (b)'WP:CITEVAR - "If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).

So far the consensus is for the change. You might have a point with the use of it in the piddling stub we had in August. But since I intended a considerable and complex expansion, and we now have 40kb not 6, a more sophisticated format seems more than justified. In addition, the editors objecting to the template or expressing reserves about it, have no significant record for editing the page.done.

Anything else? Anything overlooked? Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the more comprehensive list I promised.

• (1)"regarded by some as an exponent of Gandhian civil disobedience" - UNDUE. One guy (a friend and fellow activist) said it. This does not belong in the lead. I suggest removing this and the "extreme left wing activist and troublemaker" thing and replacing with "he is a controversial figure". What the controversy is can be found in the article.
• (2)"Kaminer influenced his activism" - according to...
• (3)"belonging to a despised minority" - should be in quotes.
• (4)The article says that Nawi adopted the beduin, "judging that their lifestyle was subject to an 'existential danger' for the way their fields were burned, or seeded with poison to kill their grazing stock" - the source does not say that this is why Nawi "adopted" them. It is someone relating a story he heard from someone else about specific incidents. Moreover, while Shulman may be an academic, this is a memoir not an academic work. It should not be included unattributed.
• (5)"their wells poisoned, their aged beaten and their land expropriated" - sourced to an opinion piece. Should not be included unattributed.
• (6)"He defends their right to harvest olives from their own olive groves when this is challenged by violent settlers" - sourced to an opinion piece.
• (7)Do I need to list all of the opinion pieces used here unattributed? There are a lot more.
• (8)"have been suspected by the police of attempting to assassinate him" - no mentions of an attempt to assassinate him, only of intentions.
• (9)"In sworn testimony... David Shulman recalled an incident" - quote is UNDUE. You can say Shulman has said he saw him being attacked on several occasions.
• (10)What "Nawi is on record as saying" should be in quotes.
• (11)"In one particular episode in January 2003" - Shulman again. Why is this specific incident important?
• (12)"Nawi rushed to put himself between the settlers and the harvesting fellahin to protect the latter, and a settler filed a complaint to police accusing Nawi of attacking him" - assuming AIC is actually a reliable source, do you happen to have the actual article rather than a link to an abstract in an student run web site?
• (13)"Such permits are almost impossible to obtain..." - according to...
• (14)"in his own defense... asked rhetorically" - this and the following quotes are SOAP. It is not a direct defense for the offense he was charged with, it's his political opinion.
• (15)"Judge Ziskind, in her ruling" - should also be paraphrased.
• (16)Regarding the citation style, as I said before it's already done so I see no point in changing it back, but you are now aware that in the future you need to gain consensus for it before you make the change.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• (1)For a medium length article, the lead is notably short, and requires expansion. Since the article deals in two perspectives on how to interpret what Nawi does, those two perspectives must be covered in the lead.

(a) No one seems to object to these leads in wiki articles on similar figures (demonic, extreme 'left-wing' scoundrels)

(b)Gideon Levy:'Levy has been characterized variously as a "propagandist for the Hamas"[2] to a "heroic journalist".[3]'

(c)Ilan Pappé: 'His work has been both supported and criticized by other historians.'

(b) In Ariel Sharon's lead, he is called a 'controversial and polarising figure' and both negative and positive interpretations of his career are given due space, a perfect mirror of what we have here.

Shulman is one of the foremost experts on Indian civilization and languages, reviews works for major publications on figures like Gandhi (Lelyveld's in Harper's is the context), is a leading Israeli theorist of Gandhian principles, and has a decade of experience with activism in the area where Nawi operates. His view holds weight on all imaginable grounds, it is not that of some journo writing an op-ed. Your suggestion would leave the lead with 2 sentences, highlighting that he is like Joe the Plumber, and got into global headlines once. In any case, I have given attribution to Shulman, and provided a second source from Herschthal, who is a well-known writer for The Jewish Week. 'He is a controversial figure' only for the IDF and settlers, and that term 'controversial figure', though the preferred default term for any critic, esp. Jewish or Israeli critic, of the West Bank occupation, is flat, deceptive and POV-weighted. It is plunked into the Norman Finkelstein article (he first attracted controversy;Finkelstein's career has been marked by controversy;the controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research; attracted a lot of controversy), but not into the Alan Dershowitz article, though both are controversy-ridden. It is in Gideon Levy's article ('Levy's writing has aroused controversy.'), Noam Chomsky 's article ('far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have raised controversy'); Neve Gordon ('Gordon was well known in a high-profile controversy'); Shlomo Sand ('author of the controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People.') that kind of phrasing is nowhere evidenced in articles on figures like Steven Plaut, who are certainly, per sources, highly controversial.

In short, your suggestion unfortunately reflects code-language to mark critics of the Israeli occupational policies.

• (2)"Kaminer influenced his activism" - according to...' No. Ethan Bronner directly interviewed Ezra Nawi and many of the details of his life are recorded by the journalist. 'According to' seeds doubts both as to Nawi's reliability and Bronner's authenticity as an interviewer. It would be sheer comedy to write 'according to himself'.
• (3) ':*(3)"belonging to a despised minority" - should be in quotes. done
• (4) 'adopted the bedouin'. (b) 'existential danger'. I've broken up the sentence into two, and provided, for the moment, the exact cite from Baram where Nawi is quoted. It is not a third person report (though there is an abundance of Youtuve video on this behaviour and hundreds of articles by reporters on the scenes saying these things are done). These are the ipsissima verba, quoted directly by the interviewer, Baram. My bad for using Shulman. done
• (5) ':*(5)"their wells poisoned, their aged beaten and their land expropriated" - sourced to an opinion piece.' No, it is not an opinion piece, and attempts to subjectivize universally attested facts like this will be challenged. What Nawi says is confirmed by numerous reports by third parties who accompanied him to these 'events', as you will see if you read all of the articles cited.
• (6):*(6)"He defends their right to harvest olives'. It's not sourced to an 'opinion piece'. Gideon Levy interviewed the Palestinians directly. The event was witnessed by the eminent Latinist of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Amiel Vardi, the event was filmed and you can watch it here, as he is arrested for the crime of defending and interpreting for an old woman surrounded by hostile soldiers.
• (7)'Do I need to list all of the opinion pieces used here unattributed?' You seem to be confusing opinion pieces with direct reportage quite often.
• (8)'"have been suspected by the police of attempting to assassinate him" - no mentions of an attempt to assassinate him, only of intentions.' Good point. I've changed 'attempting' to 'planning'. done.
• (9)"In sworn testimony... David Shulman recalled an incident" - quote is UNDUE. That's your view, and merely an assertion, and not grounded in any substantive demonstration that this violates WP:Undue. It would certainly be odd to consider one short quote by an authority and eye-witness about Nawi's behaviour as 'undue' in an article with a lengthy excursus on a trial where he was indicted and convicted for riotous behaviour.
• (10)What "Nawi is on record as saying" should be in quotes'. done.
• (11) 'Shulman again. Why is this specific incident important?' It is typical of his life, and the article is constructed of events in his life, per RS. It is neither 'important' nor 'unimportant'. It is there on the record.
• (12)assuming AIC is actually a reliable source, do you happen to have the actual article rather than a link to an abstract in an student run web site?'Well the abstract is now held only there. I am making enquiries to see if we can get a better source. So this should be considered as on standby.
• (13)"Such permits are almost impossible to obtain..." - according to...' My personal view is that the obvious need not be footnoted in wikipedia. To write 'according to Shulman' would be silly because I, like anyone else with an interest in reality, can google up from reliable books or websites, official statistics or reports from NGOs or scholars of development studies which underline that Shulman is merely stating the obvious. Never attribute to a single person's 'opinion' what everyone knows is a statistically verifiable fact, in short. Here's a link to just one article which will direct you to the specialist literature that concludes

The report, published last month by the Israeli human rights group Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights, makes clear that for the 150,000 Palestinians who live in the part of the West Bank known in the Oslo accords as Area C - 60 per cent of the total territory that comes under Israel's direct control - Israeli policies practically prevent any new Palestinian construction."We have a system that deliberately allows Jewish settlers to expand West Bank settlements virtually at will, while for the 150 Palestinian villages and communities in Area C, applications to build are mostly rejected," Mr Cohen-Lifshitz said. "On average, 13 building permits are granted each year for Palestinians."

As you can see at a glance, Shulman's remark differs by one (12/13) from the figure given as released per month by the Israeli Civil Administration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents there' reflects Bimkom's expert analyst's view that on average, only 13 permits are granted each year.

If you like, I will provide 20 book or RS references for the platitude to the page. But I'd rather not clutter it.

• (14)'in his own defense... asked rhetorically" - this and the following quotes are SOAP. It is not a direct defense for the offense he was charged with, it's his political opinion.'
• I disagree. It's is Nawi's view, defending himself publicly, for the charge made against him, in the context of the trial. A quote from the article on a person, defending his integrity, when he has been condemned in law, is not WP:SOAP. which is what editors are asked not to do, not about the content of remarks made, and on the record, by the subjects of an article. You appear to object to having anything quted from Nawi or from anyone about him. Yet wiki articles subject to far more intense, community wide scrutiny than this have no problem in profusely larding the text with extensive quotes. Take Alan Dershowitz, whose page is closely guarded by wikipedians known for their severe readings of wikipolicy in such articles:

(a)'Bazelon was my best and worst boss at once ... He worked me to the bone; he didn't hesitate to call at 2 a.m. He taught me everything—how to be a civil libertarian, a Jewish activist, a mensch. He was halfway between a slave master and a father figure." (49 words)

(b) "the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance."(80 words, blowing his own trumpet, humbly)

(c)'(Israel will) announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings (66 words)

(d) "Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them—on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians"(46 words)

(e)'"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.' (57)

(f) "Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights." (60 words)

Nawi's quote has 69 words, it is the only quote from him, and no where on the scale of the profuse and at times lengthier quotations on Dershowitz's article.

Of course, one could argue Dershowitz is someone, Nawi is, as some editors believe, a useless figure not worth a scrap of our attention. But sources say otherwise.

• (15)"Judge Ziskind, in her ruling" - should also be paraphrased. Why? I could think of a dozen pages where the judge's words in a ruling are cited extensively, See Grafton Green's ruling in the Scopes Trial, etc.
• (16)'in the future you need to gain consensus for (template changes) before you make the change.' For the record, I have used this template on several articles bookmarked and edited by a large community of editors. You are the only wikipedian, and one who has for the record not even attempted to edit this article, who has cautioned me on this. Consensus comes from editors who are editing articles, not from anyone who just wanders in to make comments on a talk page. But, that said, I have found several of your minor points useful, and adopted them. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(1) Putting the opinion of one person (who happens to be a friend and fellow activist) in the lead is UNDUE. Your long lecture on code words is TLDR. Of the three examples you gave, two use the same same kind of language and in the case of Gideon Levi, you could find dozens of people who have used the exact same language about him (from both sides).

(2) If he says that Kaminer influenced him, it should say that's what he says. It can not be stated as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice.

(4)Nonsense. If your intention is to get me to say: 'Nawi reported to Ethan Bronner who reported to the New York Times, whom Nishidani reports as writing, that he was influenced by Kaminer', you should read a prose manual for journalists on style. A click on the link is all the reader needs to verify.

Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But, hey, I'll add it anyway. done Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My intention is for you not to state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There you go.done indeed overdone. Do we need to also add, it is claimed that he was born in Jerusalem, as he told Bronner? Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(4) It should be in quotes and not the neutral voice).

The relevant phrases are quoted. You cannot ask me to quote everything Nawi is reported as saying to interviewers, and then, volte farce ask me elsewhere to cut down quoting.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You should either quote or attribute. You can not state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You've forgotten your original point. 'It is said' etc. stands in one sentence and is not connected to the rest. The original request has been satisfied. If you wish to invent another request, add it to a separate section.doneNishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(5) Should also be in quotes. And I don't know many serious journalists that start their serious journalistic articles with a story about their mother giving away their jeans.

Read the New York Times. It is the standard technique used in US journalism to start an article with a vignette.Nishidani (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite dispassionate journalism, but never mind. The information in the article is something Nawi said and you can't state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The clause:'their fields were burned, or seeded with poison to kill their grazing stock, their wells poisoned, or demolished, their aged beaten and their land expropriated,’ is preceded by '(Nawi) judged. Attribution is clear. You should read the page before raising outdated objections. done Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(6) The article says the he helped them pick olives and later called the police. Not "defended their right to...". I do agree that this is not an opinion piece. Must have been looking at something else.

done.

(7) You seem to be confused about the requirement to attribute stuff rather than state it as fact in the neutral voice.

No, not confused at all. Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite confused. You can't state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You are often saying Nawi claims where reporters present at the scene report what they saw. despite your best efforts, this article is not a showcasing for what Nawi says or says he did. It reports what reliable third parties saw him do.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(9) It's not only one short quote, Shulman is quoted repeatedly in this article. It is indeed UNDUE to give such prominence to the opinion of one person.

Answered several times. One writes to sources. Shulman is a key source. I do not 'quote him repeatedly'. I use him several times almost invariably in paraphrase. He happens to be the leading published authority on this area and its problems.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this issue to the appropriate board tomorrow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, notify this page where. I don't hang round boards, or track what people do, and need a heads up. I'll be curious to see who turns up. You might inform them of the quantity of information from Shulman I have kept out of the article because I don't care to ruthlessly press certain things. E.g.

A cold wind is blowing, and the skies are heavy with cloud. There’s a bus-stop at this corner that we’ve named Ezra Nawi Junction, and there’s even a large colored graffito on the wall that reads “We are all Ezra Nawi”—this from the day last year when Judge Elata Ziskind sent Ezra to jail for a month for doing the sorts of things we were doing today. (He was, she said, undermining law and order.)The graffito has been painted over by an entirely sinister one: “Kahana was right.” Mostly settlers use this bus-stop. I think someday when the nightmare is over, when the occupation is no more and Palestine is free, there will really and truly be a plaque or a small monument here in stone, in Hebrew, in honor of Ezra and the non-violent struggle he has led for the simplest, most basic rights that all human beings own by virtue of being born. But for now, the settlers are still running the show, and another black graffito on the wall of the bus-stand reads: paam halachti le-eretz rechoka, pagashti sham ’aravi ve-natati lo boks ba-af shelo. Eizeh keif lihyot yehudi. Mavet la’aravim.(“Once I went to a distant land. There I met an Arab, and I smashed him on the nose. It’s fun to be a Jew. Death to Arabs.”)

Rather than overuse him, I've been distinctly discreet.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(11) Again, you are picking stuff one guy wrote and peppering the article with it. That it is mentioned in an (arguably) RS is nice, but why is it notable enough to be included in the article?

As per (9) Shulman is not 'one guy'. He is our main source, and one of the most distinguished academics Israel, the US, the world has. His work is everywhere praised for its erudite incisive and comprehensive mastery of the subjects that interest him. The obverse of your argument is a proposal for wiki policy that would read:'If a reliable source contains much relevant data on an event or person no other source contains, do not use it often, even if this means the article cannot be written.' Hilarious.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(13) Your opinion, while very interesting is not relevant in this case. If you find reliable source for reporting such facts reporting it as fact, that's great. Otherwise it needs to be attributed to whoever is being quoted as saying it.

You've failed to reply. I did not provide my 'opinion'. I provided, and offered to provide more of the same, a source which gave the statistics which underlie what Shulman wrote. It turns out the statistics are the same. If a fact is stated by a source, it is a fact, not an opinion, and does not require attribution. Otherwise, 'according to Shulman, the world is round'. If I were writing 'the world is flat', I would attribute. Since you are unfamiliar with the facts, you take them to be opinions. A common malady in this area of wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(14) No, it's Nawi making a political statement. He was accused of hitting a policeman, not of blocking roads or refusing to connect anyone to electricity. If you have a problem with the Alan Dershowitz article, go ahead and fix it.

It's Nawi making a statement in his defence regarding the trial we report. There is nothing in policy which says such material should not be used. It is immaterial that you read this as a 'political statement'. Most commentators are surprised at his indifference to politics, something not shared by wikieditors, who see politics everywhere.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(15) Because it looks like a transparent attempt to "balance" the excessive quotes above it. Comparing it to an article that is specifically about a trial doesn't really make much sense.

A word on the English language. Things that are 'transparent' don't 'appear/look' like they are transparent. The article must achieve balance. Nawi's defenders have their say. The judge's opinion in passing sentence is given due attention. NPOV. I cited comparable wiki pages on trials. You failed to respond to the evidence that there is, in this regard, nothing unusual in the way I cited the judge's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(16) For the record, the guidelines are very clear on this issue and for the record there is no requirement for consensus to come "from editors who are editing articles". Not to mention that had I dared touch the article while you were in the middle of changing it to your liking, I would have probably got one of your condescending lectures.

The guidelines say anyone can edit. A consensus is achieved by editors who edit a page. It can be technically subverted by rallying around numerous blowins to add weight to one side or another. We all know this. I see a lot of arguments I have an opinion on, but which I do not jump at, because it would look like a shabby piece of playing the numbers racket. There are several editors who have raised issues over two months here. I have gone through all complaints, on both sides, and addressed them according to my lights. Their opinions are this point constitute the basis for a consensus. Persuade them.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

90 percent of what you've written is assertion, with a vague wave of the hand at policy which doesn't mostly stand up to scrutiny. Any number of wiki pages that have been challenged by both sides display, now that they are consensually stable, the sort of things you arbirarily complain of here, as though this page were some bizarre anomaly. Aside from the usual crew of bystanders, you seem to be the only one who finds this screwed up from top to bottom.

I've not only budged, but gone a long way to satisfying your multiple and often repetitious requests. I've gone over half way to compromise. You refuse to budge. In stating:'If you have a problem with the Alan Dershowitz article, go ahead and fix it,' you are saying that if the standards of one page in wiki, where dozens of administrators have watched, are the same as the standards of this page, as I pointed out, then your objection to Nawi applies to Dershowitz, but in both cases, the work falls to me. I know that never actually doing much, but complaining a lot about one half of the equation makes for a good life. Never worry about wikipedia, just worry the guts out of any page on anything you dislike.

You even admit you don't read my replies (TLDR), so replyiong is pointless. I can see no policy here, just animus against the subject being accorded a decent page. Since you won't listen to me, and since consensus is the game, I'll leave it to you to persuade the others who have actually worked on the page that you see policy violations where I don't. Your animus against Shulman is groundless. Biographies are based on eyewitness testimony. Many writers of biographies from Boswell to John Hall (author of the recent biography on Ernest Gellner) knew their subjects intimately. To repeat 'he is a friend' is silly; to say Shulman is overused is silly (no one complained of my use of mostly Hill's standard source to write the life of Ted Strehlow, but then neither is pro-Palestinian). So, convince the others, by all means. I've done what wikipedia asks of editors, to actually work on building the encyclopedia, rather than kibitzing around to knock a fairly well-constructed page off its feet. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So first you ask me not to edit the article because you're working on it and when you "get off the scaffolding" you'll see about the issues, and now you're complaining I'm not editing the article but only raising issues? That's nice.

I don't have any interest in the Alan Dershowitz article. I'm not going to read about your problems with it here since they are not relevant to this article. I read with great interest the rest of what you wrote and answered in detail, so pretending I'm not reading anything is rather dishonest.

Anyway, you want me to fix the problems myself? I'd be happy too. I hope it won't result in a long monologue where you cast yourself as the poor oppressed peasant and me as the lazy heartless aristocrat. That was amusing the first time, but has grown a bit old. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't have any interest in Alan Dershowitz. You have a strong interest in a minor article no one looks at, which you clearly think has all of the problems of the Dershowitz article. No one else in wikipedia sees the problems with the Dershowitz article you see menacing this page. No one so far (of course rings-ins can be summoned at will) seems to think this article is 'problematical'.

I don't want you to fix 'the problems' you invent by yourself. I am saying your problem-identifying doesn't make sense, that no one here seems to see them, except the usual support team.

Since your particular lynx-eyed scrutiny goes into hypercritical focus on this, but nods off indifferently at the other page, (it's not 'aristocratic' but rather the run-of-the-mill hallmark or signature of I/P POV editwarriors) though they share the same characteristics that worry you, it means your interest in wikipedia is actively 'political'. The style of edit-warriors is this:-

Ignore the rules you assert are being violated when they regard pages of people or events you approve of: apply them obsessively to pages whose subject or subject matter you find profoundly irksome or distasteful.

Pretty obvious, totally predictable, and I suppose the game is to manoeuver in such a way that we get the same boring edit-wars, traps for potential AE complaints, and a chance to fill the predictions of many on those arbitration pages where it was predicted I'd soon be hauled back there for sanctions for poor behaviour. It's not an 'aristocratic' attitude at all. It's a your average middle class speculator's market-calculation of getting the most return on small investments of time and energy. Of course, as the IDF said in a policy statement, 'we're not equipped to give a rapid and efficient response to pacific behaviour'. Some people need drama in their lives. Some people need to remind the world that drama is everywhere, and infractions of our decency afoot, . . But today's another day. Still, I will closely examine your last batch, and review the article. Life on wikipedia wasn't meant to be easy, and let no one accuse me of laziness.Nishidani (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've interleavened, though you asked me not to, my replies to your remarks. The other format is totally unworkable, or so laborious in forcing readers to scroll back and forth, that I have had, in the interests of clarity to third parties, to reply thus. This is not a conversation between two, but an exchange of views to which all editors are party.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Considering I have never edited or participated in a discussion regarding the Alan Dershowitz article, a simpler explanation would be that I am just not interested in the guy. Don't let that stop you from projecting your mindset on me, though. I liked the bit where you accused me of having a support team and summoning ring-ins. That was almost funny. Should I wave to your lurking posse? Nah, they'll jump in when they feel they're needed.

All you have to do is play by the rules and nobody will be able to "trap" you. I understand this might be a bit difficult for you, considering your tendency for long winded diatribes about the multiple faults you find in people who don't agree with you, but I'm almost sure you can rein that in.

Anyway, while I find your theories about me quite riveting, could you focus on the issues? Like all those places where you use the encyclopedia's neutral voice inappropriately? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll interleave. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited Dershowitz either. Look up analogy. The objections you make here, were they valid, apply to that page as well. That page has master editors all over it. No one has noticed there, the same errors which you, uniquely, have detected and object to here. So, by analogy, your appeal to policy is vagrant, and your perception of policy idiosyncratic. Or it means you see things no experienced editor sees where they should see them. It's that simple. I'm glad you found my fantasies rivetting. One needs relief from the boredom of editing by the distraction of a well-spun just.so story. Glad to oblige.:) Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RS/N

I started a discussion about Shulman's book here. Not noting it in the previous section since it would probably just get lost in there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Birth date

The Hebrew wiki gives 1951. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page ratings suspended or removed?

I can't rate the page. The Page ratings dialogue box is there. I enter ratings. But when I reload the page, the ratings box says there are no ratings. First time I ever saw this. How is this possiblle.. might some admin have suspended or removed the ratings? Or something more sinister afoot? (this is by far the most bizaree, most sinister wiki contribution I have ever come across) cckkab (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, cckkab. I just for the first time tried to rate it (giving an average or slightly bove average vote, I admit, rather egotistically, and I got 'ratings' saved, and when I clicked to see ratings, it turns out from 19-24 people have rated the page. Dunno why it worked for me.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it works for me now too. Quite amazing. I rate pages all the time.. maybe one or two per day. And earlier, this page wasn't showing ratings (before and after reload) nor could I rate it (before and after reload). Quite amazing.

A complete rewrite of the page is warranted

Like I and others said above, this entry is quite problematic. I'd rewrite it entirely 1) a far shorter entry is merited, like in Hebrew (which in contrast to the English version, is rather decent). Just facts. Not opinions on facts. There are actually aren't that many notable facts. So the article can be far shorter. 2) remove citations that are mere eulogies (I'd keep most of the references and footnotes though) 3) frame the entry around a linear time progression i.e. following the progression of Nawi's life. I'm only ready to do this work if I think there is some consensus around it, that I won't get abuse (RolandR, please can you have the decency to remove what you wrote on my page a few months ago). It remains surprising that a few users continue to claim that there is no evidence of earlier convictions. Contrary to what some people claim above, the documentation is extensive (event today, for what it is worth, a 4-page article on Nawi in some editions of the The Sun today, no internet link (yes I know, you want to eschew some of the inferences from this source)) cckkab (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Doubtless users like RolandR and Nishidani will be opposed to a far shorter article (Nishidani by the way is by far the most prolific in contributing to the Nawi article). What do others think? cckkab (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never posted abuse on your talk page, and it is your prerogative to remove anything from the page. RolandR (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understand your objection, it is that too much is written, and that he needs a short page, like the Hebrew one. A short page would presumably consist of his sexual offences, and run-ins with the law, without elaboration. Let me analyse the implications of what you are saying.

'a few users continue to claim that there is no evidence of earlier convictions. Contrary to what some people claim above, the documentation is extensive.'

That means, as it was before, a page that, in its reductive succinctness, omitted the whole raison d'etre for his activism which is what got him into trouble, and would effectively present Nawi as a drug-consuming, pistol-wielding, pedophilic trouble-stirrer with several convictions. You say there are 'few notable facts' and this demands a very brief entry. Then you complain that the literature on his criminal convictions earlier is extensive, implying that needs to be (exhaustively) mined.

No. One writes to verifiable sources, and there are many. Given all the shit thrown his way, all of which gets us into WP:BLP issues, wikipedia at least should give a complete rounded picture, such as reliable sources provide. As a matter of interest, I used as a guideline a dozen articles of a similar typology (controversial public figure), one of which was Moshe Katsav. Most of your objections would apply to those articles, which no one however appears to object to for their length, citation of reactions, eulogies, trial details, and criticisms. One thing you overlooked. In the original article, there was a a notable amount of elementary disinformation or incorrect information, even on such elementary things as where he was born, and the sources themselves were victims of sloppy copy and paste journalism. I went through what passed RS in several languages, and managed to fix information that many, otherwise superficially respectable sources wrongly repeat. The strength of the article lies in the fact that it now gives a reasonable, closely documented overview of the large picture which most sources seem unaware of, because they were written hastily and consist in a poorly grounded patchwork of sparse 'facts'. It probably now stands as the most comprehensive thing on Nawi readily available on the net, though in saying this I will be accused of blowing my own trumpet. I certainly don't think that a thumbnail account based on dubious Israeli court judgements (highly contested in the general literature on Israeli court proceedings with regard to the area of the West Bank) is anyway sufficient to provide a rounded picture of Nawi.

While one might wish as little to be said as possible, that itself is a POV, based on one's personal assessment of him as a relative non-entity. Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a good write-up of Nawi here, the most rounded and complate yet, and there is no reference on the Nawi page. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/1029/1224306692417.html Indeed the page, while a bit better than a few months ago, remains a jumble with lots of POV introduced through third party quotes, making it overly long. It for me clearly does not attain Wikiepedia standards. But the incentive to do anything about it is low, if activists are determined to keep it that way, and administrators do nothing to clamp down. Believe me, intelligent supporters of Nawi would see the interest in a more neutral page. cckkab (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was only published today, and few editors will have seen it yet, so there has been no time to add it. I agree that it is informative and balanced. But I must make a note of caution: it contains at least one significant error. Reuven Kaminer was never the "leader of Israel's communist party". He was, as far as I recall, Jerusalem branch organiser in the 1960s, and then head of a dissident faction which eventually left to form the Israeli Socialist Left. So I would be reluctant to use this article for facts beyond Nawi's own account, without double-checking. RolandR (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

cckkab. 'The most rounded and complete yet?' Without bringing my training in source-criticism to bear, I think most readers of the article will detect at a glance that it owes a heavier debt to our article than to the interview with Nawi. Our article corrected several significant errors in many sources, and got the Reuven Kaminer detail right*, and the Irish Times's article duly accepts these corrections in what was a skewed account in article after article.

It does provide us with three useful snippets - his Yom Kipper War role, his hashish smoking, and an admission he knew the boy was under the legal age. But the rest is a faithful recasting of our comprehensive article. These details have been duly entered. I'm not an 'activist'. I certainly do not go round to the Spanish wiki to write garbled details of Nawi's sex life, or work up that detail for the Gaelic version, speaking as one editor. What you take to be 'neutral' would mean, I assume, dwelling at great length on his statutory rape conviction, and eliding the numerous comments by many distinguished Israeli human rights activists that he has worked hard to better the life and conditions of a persecuted peasantry in the Southern Hebron Hills. Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rather, I'd made a note to get that detail right, since Bronner, our source, was patently wrong, but I forgot to adjust the language, and never came across any RS in the meantime to warrant a correction. Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Copyedit

Not having had the chance yet to give the article a thorough proofread, there are clearly aspects of the prose that would benefit greatly from the contribution of a native English speaker experienced in polishing up punctuation and semantics and features of that nature. I'd do it myself, but it demands time I don't have at my disposal right now. Basically, per MOS:QUOTE#Quotation_marks, quotation marks should look like ", excepting cases of quotations within quotations. There's one instance of the word "convey" for which the correct noun form should by "convoy." Stuff like that.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it as totally improper. You only mark that sort of thing on neglected pages, which this isn't. You especially should not post dubious templates on an article that has a dozen eyes from native speakers looking at it, and checking the page regularly, while affirming you yourself, while spotting problems of punctuation,haven't the time to lift a finger. There are no obstacles to editing the page to correct such minor lapses, errors, oversights. You marred the page for a month with a template that only told the reader mischievously that there were citation problems, without explaining on the talk page what these mysterious problems were. So, I removed it, because I'll be more than happy to copyedit, check semantics etc., along with anyone else here interested in such matters. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

When you're through copyediting and are persuaded the prose is up to par, feel free to remove the template again. It'll be 1RR, but no one'll hold it against you.—Biosketch (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got two external editors to look at it, one an admin. They said it read well, so I think it improper to post that notice, since anyone just has to ask, or directly edit, to tidy up such minor things. No, I can't revert, because, whatever our personal takes, there is a 1RR rule governing the page. But the tag, within a half an hour, should be removed, as it is, as I noted above, unnecessary on a constantly worked page.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily remove the tag myself if I'm still online when I'm satisfied the copyedit issues've been resolved, which I think I'm allowed to do since I'm the one who added the tag, even though I already reverted once. But there's still a sentence in the lead that doesn't end with a period, single quotation marks where there should be double, and I'm just scrolling through the article haphazardly. Why aren't I doing the copyediting myself? Trust me, it takes a lot of willpower on my part to resist that urge. But it's the kind of thing that demands a level of concentration and application I'm not able to devote to the article right now because of all kinds of distractions around me.—Biosketch (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I spend on average 6 hours a day doing chores, for other, often younger people, some on tutoring kids, two on property upkeep, and a few on wiki, before turning to my professional interests. My gerontologist mate says it may stave off the symptoms of senility for a year or two. Trust me, courtesy and generosity are as important as willpower in making the world liveable.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay 25 edits, correcting about 40 things. I have to chop winter wood for a few hours. If you note anything else that needs attention, drop a note. I'll catch up later this afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the widow's house demolished

The edit summary by Biosketch is inadequate for its removal. The inclusion of this photo has nothing to do with BLP protocols. The photo documents what the IDF does to the villagers whom Nawi assists. The relevant information, about the house, identified as that of a widow with 9 children, at Umm Kheir, is given here on the International Solidarity Movement page. Thus the claim can be reliably sourced, as anyone who bothers to actually check for 10 seconds can appreciate. Just search it with widow+9 children and you will obtain the relevant page. The photo uploaded is the second in the series as you click through, and carries the identification as you move the cursor. I know that many here work as media censors, rather than encyclopedic builders intent on comprehensive coverage, on behalf of the colonists and their Lebensraum project, but the arguments given for hiding the obvious facts here are, to be generous, fragile. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

NPoV issue - lead

I don't know at all this man. But reading the lead, he appears to me as a criminal and nothing else. Maybe that this picture complies with what sources and the article say but that seems strange. Is the lead complying with NPoV ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If he's a 'criminal', then of course most Palestinians are criminals. 99% of his police charge sheet results from harassment from the occupational authorities. He deserves the Nobel Prize for peace, as a light under the nation(s) he has worked 20 years to defend from the most violent in his own community.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Then I think the lead should be re-written because the 1st sentence, which is expected to bring the most relevant information about him says : "He has been charged for numerous infractions of the law, convicted for a number of offences, and served several short stints in prison as a consequence of his activism.[2] He has been described as a "Ta'ayush nudnik",[3] and "a working-class, liberal gay version of Joe the Plumber".[4][5] Some regard him as an extreme leftist activist and troublemake" (...)

Per WP:NPoV, WP:Due weight and WP:BLP we should start by what he did (good and less good) and only after the consequences and critics (good and bad).

My 2 eurocents :-)

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. I've rearranged the sentence order. The problem is NPOV, hard to establish when he is so widely admired, and yet, by a number of institutions, bitterly detested. RS tend to highlight his 'heroism' rather than emphasize his run-ins with the police, settlers and the government. To get the 'dirt' spread about him, which conflicts with everything people who know him well, you have to read trivial crap from Arutz Sheva and other non-RS gossip mills, like this, this or this, for example. If you want a real laugh at Arutz Sheva's reliability against a reasonable knowledge of the history of Susya, read this. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I also think that I misunderstood some key sentences due to English.

After reading 2 articles link in the lead, I permitted myself to add a "fact" talking for him and what seems to be an important part of his activities in order to balance the high number of his condemnations.

I also added a paragraph to put criticism in a 2nd section.

Of course, feel free to change anything back. I really don't know this man.

(edit conflict)

Thank you for the links. Unfortunately A7 doesn't make me laugh anymore... :-( Settleman upsets me and I think I should take this wikibreak that I plan to take before I start reacting like Malik...

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Take a break certainly. I regard this place as a form of therapy against one's natural human frailties, esp. allowing one's emotions to get the better of one's analytical judgement. In that sense, learning to interact lucidly and calmly with editors whose POV might strike one as upsetting or even nauseous is a positive thing: there is a certain debt to them. The real attrition is not on the emotions dealing with real events, but the waste of time bad editing causes. Nawi, like Shulman and other of his colleagues at Hebrew University, have learnt this the hard way: we, in the virtual world of mere description at a long distance from the facts on the ground, should try to pick up a lesson too, if only because it is conducive to NPOV, and also to the historical vocation: the best groundbreaking history of the Holocaust was written by virtue not only of his genius, but also because its author, Raul Hilberg, was gifted with remarkable analytic detachment even while following the great Marc Bloch's oft cited dictum (before he was murdered in that apocalypse):'Le bon historien ressemble à l’ogre de la légende. Là où il flaire la chair humaine, il sait que là est son gibier." Amitiés Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nasser Nawaja

Is this Nasser Nawaja the same Nasser Mawaja of Susya? IF so the Ad Kan complaint has wider ramifications, since settlers are using every means at their disposal to destroy that village, and he is one of its last bastions of defense.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same man, since the descriptor is identical, B'tselem field researcher, and the research area is identical (South Hebron Hills).Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Susya was mentioned in the original TV episode. Trying to justify Nawi's actions is a proof he is not a human rights activist but a pro-Palestinian activist for whom it is legitimate to risk people life to protect Palestinians interests. DaniDin 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is 'justifying' Nawi's actions. They are all described and contextualized. Your words suggest there is something wrong with being a 'pro-Palestinian activist'. If that were true, you are hoist by your own petard, since the mirror of that is being a 'pro-Israeli activist'. Both mean 'working on behalf of a national interest', something which, in everyone's own backyard (not mine, I believe), is regarded as natural and normal. Lastly 'putting people's lives as risk to protect a national interest' is what all armies, the IDF included, does. Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And by the way your edit adding that a capital crime is punishable by death is an example of redundancy. Indeed it's like saying 'pleonastic redundancy' or 'circular tautology' or 'a lethal dose of poison that had fatal consequences' or 'a tasty orange that was quite succulent'.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said there is anything wrong with being pro-Palestinian but say it out loud instead of dressing oneself as 'human rights activist'. DaniDin 20:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

He is a human rights activist. Perhaps I should add, since it is not obvious in the discursive hallucinations of that area, that Palestinians are people, and that like other people, they have rights, and that some people work actively on behalf of those rights and that if you google "Palestinians+vermin/insects/animals/cancer" etc., you will get a great number of quotes from senior Israeli politicians and spokesmen calling them collectively, 'snakes,' 'cancer', 'vermin', 'bacteria,' a 'virus', 'animals' etc., tropes and metaphors which any one with a minimal acquaintance with the racist jargon of Nazi anti-Semites will immediately recognize as formerly used exclusively of Jews.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I commend you on being able to sneak a comparison of Israelis to Nazis into a completely unrelated topic. In case you forgot, the topic here is a person you admire knowingly sending people to be tortured and executed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I made no such comparison. Every person must take blame and responsibility for what (s)he is on the public record as saying. To forge the habitually jejune link you constantly make between anyone who is Jewish/Israeli making an outrageous statement and all Israelis or all Jews, thus suggesting that everyone in an ethnic group must wear the blame for what one of the group does, is just a dumbly manipulative gutter rhetorical ploy. This is called collective guilt, and is a nonsense. The logic is:'Baruch Marzel has engaged in terrorist behaviour, hence David Dean Shulman is a terrorist, because they share the same nationality or ethnicity, a form of crippled illogic so stupid that it is pointless arguing with people like yourself who "sneak" it in disruptively in any exchange over an edit conflict.

To the point. Newspaper reports are not reliable for technical issues, esp. on law. What my edit indicated was that there was a conflict in newspaper reports about what is a complex legal issue. In normal wiki practice, in such instances, one looks at the technical reality, not the newspaper slants. We have a Palestinian claiming the Jordanian law applies to Israelis (a nationality inclusive of Jews and Arabs, and Israeli sources claiming in lockstep it applies to 'Jews' alone. The authoritative work on this is Michael R. Fischbach,Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Columbia University Press,2012. I haven't yet accessed it but in his brief article 'Palestine 1947-1997: From Partition Plan to Allon Plus; Who owns what?,' Le monde diplomatique September 1997, he states:

Since Jordan had made land sales to Israelis a crime punishable by death (from 1973-87 about 100 people were sentenced by Jordanian courts to death in absentia), the PA has imposed its own death penalty for such sales, including land in Jerusalem

it is clear that the article on Nawi cannot simply elide that source variation and assert it is specifically directed at Jews. Go deeper into the technical side, with examination of the actual historical statutes of Jordan and the PA and it gets more complex. Details are available in a non-RS (because unfortunately published by Lulu.com) here.

As a cursory glance will show, the persons to whom land cannot be sold are variously the "enemy", "occupiers", "Israelis" and "Jews". To privilege the latter, and paper over this source conflict, is POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The text I changed originally said "The Palestinian penal code, adopting a principle from the previous Jordanian legal system, classifies acts that result in the sale of land to Israelis (not to Jews as such) as a crime", so your claim that your text "indicated that there was a conflict in newspaper reports about what is a complex legal issue" is patently false. Your text pushed your POV, as per usual.

Bring your academic sources and we'll see what they say.

As for "dumbly manipulative gutter rhetorical ploys" and "crippled illogic so stupid that it is pointless arguing" - as usual you lead by example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you heard the huge controversy in which a Palestinian sold his property to an Israeli Arab? I haven't either. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

One is bemused by the moral outrage of people here defending Palestinian lives, as long as they stay alive long enough to sell their homeland. Compare Talmud jurisprudence

• J. David Bleich,‘Sale of Israeli Real Estate to Non-Jews Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Volume 1, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1977 pp.27-32.
• In 2004 Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl lstated before an Israeli court that any Jew guilty of selling parts of what he termed the Land of Israel falls under the law of Din Rodef, meaning he is subject to being killed legally under religious law. Nadav Shragai, 'Top Rabbi: Din Rodef on Anyone Ceding Land,' Haaretz, 30 June 2004
• Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu ‘It is forbidden to sell apartments in the Land of Israel to Gentiles’ David McDowall, Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond University of California Press, 1991 p.129

Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that's not the law in Israel while other religious bullshit is the law in other countries. Who was it that mentioned "crippled illogic so stupid that it is pointless arguing". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can't see the point, I'll rephrase. Huge hullabaloo about this denial of a right to Jews,

Not only "crippled illogic so stupid that it is pointless arguing" but also "dumbly manipulative gutter rhetorical ploys". Maybe Nishidani can explain how his above post about Judaism (not Israelis "as such" like he likes to put it) is intended to improve this article rather than what seems to be the more obvious intent, to bait his interlocutors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to end this chaps. I keep yodelling everytime I see your duet, and on examination it's because reading this performance reminds me of Laurel and Hardy going through their paces with 'At the Ball, that's all'. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow, the rabbis say something is bad, but that's academic. The Palestinians say something is bad, and they behead people for it. Are you comparing the two? Have any Jews ever been killed for selling land to an Arab? Have any Jews been found guilty in an Israeli court of law for selling land to an Arab? Do you really not see the difference between killing someone and talking? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't take the bait. Whatever the rabbis or anyone else said or did has no relevance to this article unless it involves Ezra Nawi. I'm sure you can clearly see who this bait is designed to lure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn, zzzz. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you also finally getting tired of your antics? Welcome to the club. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Amira Hass

Amira Hass, who was convicted of defamation, is being used a source in this article. Specifically she was convicted of defaming settlers and here she is again criticizing settlers. Under the circumstances I can't see why anyone would want to use her as a source and will remove her articles unless someone provides a good reason not to. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about how much his friend and fellow activist David Shulman is used in the article, solely for the purpose of complimenting Nawi? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. You haven't read the article, which is not about 'defaming settlers' but about the quality of reportage on what settlers do). Your premise is that anyone critical of settlers is, ipso facto, a questionable source.

Unlike most staff writers for the JPost and ToL, both are eminently qualified to cover the field because they actually know the figures, the territory, the incidents, and do not, as 95% of the newspaper reports we read, just recycle handouts without checking. She was convicted of defamation in one case,in 2001, under appeal. The case was made by a military body, which plays, notoriously, free with the facts, and often invents them (the IDF).

She may have got, I do not know, the facts wrong in one incident. But her colleagues outside the poisoned area have recognized her reportage by prestigious awards ever since (yeah sure. They're all 'anti-semetic), and the proper procedure for justifying any claim that she should be removed at sight, as you are proposing, is to go to RSN, not to act on a personal ukase, as you appear to be suggesting here, in line with your consistent attempts to remove or invalidate reportage associated with a person whose views you hate (Max Blumenthal). There you will have to explain why 7 of those awards recognizing her work were awarded after that court case.

• 2000 World Press Freedom Hero award from the International Press Institute

  • 2001, Golden Dove of Peace Prize

  2002 Bruno Kreisky Human Rights Award in 2002

  2003UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

  2004Anna Lindh Memorial Fund prize

  2009, Hrant Dink International Award

  2009, Hass received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Women's Media Foundation.Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  2009 Reporters Without Borders Prize for Press Freedom.Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read the article despite that it needs a lot of copyediting and npov corrections. Some of the fawning of a convicted child rapist made me nauseous though. Nice strawman premise you created that I am of the opinion "that anyone critical of settlers is, ipso facto, a questionable source." My rule with your screeds is that I stop reading after a personal attack or a strawman. This time I made it all the way to the second line, which is much better than usual. If you actually explained why someone convicted of defaming settlers should be used a source criticizing settlers, then great, though I suspect that simple explanation never came through. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So, writing that Nawi is a 'convicted child rapist' is an extreme violation of WP:BLP which, apart from being a gross caricature of the reality, is sanctionable here unless you strike it out. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is that a BLP violation? Is a 15 year old Palestinian not a child in this case? Was Nawi not convicted of rape? Is a 40+ year old having sex with a 15 year old something you condone, that you call pointing out the conviction a "gross caricature of the reality"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is calling him a convicted child rapist a "gross caricature of the reality", because the child "was eager for it", like some degenerate sicko thought was relevant?[4]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old "the child seduced me" defense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, I think we should return that information to the article. It says something about him that he would use this kind of "reasoning". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The good reason is Amira Hass writing in Haaretz meets the requirements of WP:RS, and if you want to challenge that by all means go to WP:RS/N. NMMNG already tried that with Shulman here and the result, predictably, was that Shulman is also a fine source for this article. nableezy - 20:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is true that apparently the encyclopedia wide consensus is that anything published by an academic press or in a peer-reviewed journal is RS. It is also true that doesn't mean it has to be automatically included in articles. There are issues of weight and consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus isnt simply a numbers game, and even if it were you kinda sorta lost with Shulman being used here. nableezy - 16:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not say or imply that consensus is a numbers game. I was saying that the fact something is RS is only the first step for including it in an article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure fine. If you want to challenge due weight theres a place for that. nableezy - 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is actually a better place to determine if there is consensus for inclusion of contested material. It doesn't appear like there is consensus for this . Bad Dryer (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That isnt how consensus works, sorry. But you know that already, any number of past accounts has experience in this. nableezy - 19:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't Brewcrewer's proposal, which was that A Hass is to be removed at sight, wearing the mark of some Scarlet Woman of Letters.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll try again: The writings of Hass, who was convicted of defaming settlers, should not be used to put settlers in bad light when the factual basis thereof originates solely from Hass. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And Ill try again. The work of a professional reporter published in quality newspaper such as Haaretz is a reliable source. If you want to challenge that go to WP:RS/N. You wont do that of course, because you already know Hass writing in Haaretz is a reliable source. nableezy - 16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

some comments

• Tagging 'some' (who?) regard EN as an extreme left activist' is patently demonstrative of a failure to check or read the news. 'far-left/radical left activist' is the default term used in every article on Nawi by the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel, not to speak of numerous other sources. Of course he is not a 'left-winger', except in the sense that lazy journalists in Israel consider anyone who dissents from government policy must be a 'left-winger'. We have to put up with the jargon.
• 'According to Max Blumenthal, he is widely revered by young activists .' Attribution is pointless, since we have openly despised by settlers and generally revered by Israeli activists'(Konrad 2016) etc. I don't mind it there, it's publicity for Blumenthal, however. If you want to promote his book, keep it in.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• (NMMGG)You removed a reduplicated 'whom Nawi said mistook him for a Jew interested in buying their property.' The edit summary says it was a ce. Fine, but the version you left in was ungrammatical, lacking 'him' and has 'Arab' where the source has 'Palestinian', and cites it to the Times of Israel, without any template, no date, just the link. In short you removed the grammatical version and left in the slipshod other edit version. The ce should have gone the other way, since the ToL article was just quoting the JTA source without acknowledgement. It was in short a ce that left in a corrupt text, that broke the template uniformity of the page, and arbitrary changed the source 'Palestinian' into 'Arab'. Would you mind actually fixing it?Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Before I changed it, the article said that "his critics" call him extreme left wing and a troublemaker. The sources on the other hand did not support that these are his critics, and in fact in the case of "troublemaker" it was a supporter who said it. So I removed the "critics" label, but then it became unclear who exactly said these things, so i tagged it. Now that you mention there are so many google hits, and considering Konrad in your link above calls him "radical left", I think maybe that fact should go in the first line of the lead, rather than be attributed to unnamed "critics" (who from your post above I gather you think includes newspapers?)
• If you don't mind it there we can regard the issue as closed.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, one googles to check whether a usage is warranted. It's not enough to say as here 'this comes from hasson and Yael Barda is not a critic.' It's easy to dredge up sources that state he is viewed as a troublemaker by critics (army and settlers). I.e.

• That is not the view of the settlers. “He is a troublemaker,” asserted Yehoshua Mor-Yosef, a spokesman for Israeli settler communities in the area. “It’s true that from time to time there is a problem of some settlers coming out of their settlements to cause problems. But people like Nawi don’t want a solution. Their whole aim is to cause trouble.” Ethan Bronner, 'Unlikely Ally for Residents of West Bank,' New York Times 27 June 27, 2009
• We wind our way over the back roads, as far as possible from the army roadblocks—since we know we're officially persona non grata in these parts, classed by the army command as troublemakers and provocateurs. Mixed parties of Palestinian-Israeli peace activists unsettle the natural order of things. David Dean Shulman, After our visit to Samu'a and Asa'el 29 November, 2008 (the context is a tour led by Ezra Nawi that day).Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

One does not say that critics say something when one's sources only include a supporter saying it. I'm glad you finally did your homework and found actual sources supporting the actual text that is now gone from the article. Unfortunately, it would incorrect to label those who says this as "critics", for reasons explained above, so I still feel the current text is still better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Doing homework is what you and several other editors never do. Look at the edit records for each: virtually no significant constructive content contribution but simply challenges and reverts. Your edit here was based on an unfamiliarity with the topic, since anyone who had read up on it would have recognized the justice of the statement, and, if dissatisfied with the sourcing, just shaken off the inertial laziness that invests folks, and roped in more confirmation. The IDF is critical, the settlers are critical, that is obvious, and to gainsay the obvious is just POV stalling.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn, zzzz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And, your edits keep restoring the ungrammatical form of a reduplicated sentence. Last night this again, which keeps in

In the recording, Nawi relates how Arab property dealers mistook for a Jew looking to purchase

in preference to the grammatical

'whom Nawi said mistook him for a Jew interested in buying their property

I don't know what the point of this repeated antic exercise is, but it's not copy-editing.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep restoring what? I changed that (once) because there was half a sentence just hanging there. I clearly marked it as "ce", which means I was not attempting to change the meaning of the content. If you don't like the result feel free to correct it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I still insist that most people can get it if it is repeated three times.

ce

Two sentences described the same information. One was grammatical, the other illiterate. You left in the illiterate version. That is not ‘copy-editing’. Got it?

I think I got it. You didn't like the copyediting I did, but rather than fix it yourself to your satisfaction, you chose to bring it up here repeatedly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point.

ref not used to support any information in the previous paragraph

This erased:Levinson 2009a: '"Ezra Nawi describes himself as "a human rights activist, gay, a Mizrahi Jew who also manages to screw the state. They just don't know how to deal with me".'

False edit summary. The previous paragraph had human rights activist, and gay. Mizrachi Jew is also in the first main para. Just to avoid equivocation, I've moved it up. The self-descriptor is important in a BLP article where sensitive issues of identity are mentioned, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mizarhi Jew was not in the lead, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Human rights activist and gay are sourced at the end of the sentence. I suppose my es could have been worded a little better. Oh well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of the background details for the curious

Richard Silverstein, 'Israeli Government Busting Up NGO’s Through Spying, Subversion,' MintPress News 13 January 2016 throws some light on Ad Kan, who's behind it, and one would expect quite a lot of follow up on this eventually.Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Pacifist

Currently the lead says in the very first sentence in the encyclopedia's neutral voice that he's a pacifist. There are a couple of problems with this. First of all it is not said explicitly anywhere in the body of the article, although there is one source that says this in the reflist. Second, we have Nawi saying he beats people. That's not what Pacifists do. Any suggestions on how to fix this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix. You've introduced two words into the text recently that are third-party descriptions of Nawi, legitimately so. Nawi has never defined himself as a 'leftist' and has never described himself (so far) as 'bragging'. When third party sources define him as a 'pacifist', you object, and this is a contradiction in your own approach. (i)Bronner states that activists who work with him say he is a 'pacifist'; (ii)Dominic Waghorn describes him as a pacifist (Dominic Waghorn, 'Israel In The Dock Over 'Rough Justice' Cases,' Sky News Thursday 10 September 2009); (iii)Tim McGirk, 'Ezra Nawi: Jewish Pacifist Facing Jail for Aiding Arabs,' Time Magazine 15 August 2009, says he is an 'avowed pacifist' which means that is how he defines himself; (iv) David Dean Shulman who has worked with him for over a decade, and is a known pacifist, and indeed a theoretician of pacifism, defines him as a pacifist; (vi) Uri Avnery 'The Widening Gap,' Gush Shalom 16 January 2016 writes:' an Israeli peace activist called Ezra Nawi.'(vi)has 'Pacifista israelense Ezra Nawi é condenado à prisão,'Globo 21 October 2009 ('O conhecido pacifista israelense Ezra Nawi foi condenado hoje=the well known Israeli pacifist E.Nawi was condemned (today),') etc.etc.

Your own edit violated all rational principles based on WP:LEAD guidance, by cherrypicking one quote and repeating it in the lead, and then in the body of the article, when the quote itself has no expansion in the text, and is otherwise, as far as I can see, unique, hence neither a summary nor representative of the general evidence (WP:Fringe) Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Do you really think it's NPOV to sprinkle the article and lead with quotes and rephrases of his buddy Shulman saying things that actually contradict what the topic of the article says himself? I'm sure you know that's not going to fly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Try and focus. One statement in 50 sources, from someone whom your edit called a braggart, is not going to trump what scholars of scruple and honour, not to speak of hundreds of others who have worked with him, state. I know it's difficult for defenders of brutality to understand that a brag is not the same as having a whole regime of delinquents hitting you or trying to rid the world of you, but most people understand the distinction.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Had any testimony been registered, or video taken, showing Nawi lashing out at his tormentors you can rest assured that he would have been indicted for it. None has. He's a braggart, and we will have to wait for the wonderful Israeli legal system's verdict to see how this spins out.

You know of course what the word 'bragging' implies? I didn't use it because it can imply the boast is untrue, or unsubstantiated. Objectively, no one knows, but your edit cast doubt on it.

Chris Kyle 'bragged about murdering looters during Hurricane Katrina, though that was never substantiated.'

Donald Trump brags his net worth is $10 billion but Forbes and many others say it is nearer $4 billion

John Christie Although he bragged about his sexual conquests, Christie was knownto have a very small penis. He found it difficult to fully satisfy women and became impotent at the thought of their rejection]

As to the lead's description of Nawai as a pacifist

(a) it is not said explicitly anywhere in the body of the article

(a.1) I presume your objection is that per WP:LEAD, that content must summarize. If so then you are wrong for it summarizes several statements in the article, not least this:

"I have been through many difficult moments with him—attacks by settlers, in particular—and I have never seen him respond to violence with violence. On one occasion in Susia, in 2005, settlers broke a wooden pole over his head, and he stood his ground without hitting back. I was right beside him, and I saw it. I have witnessed such instances many times. He is committed to nonviolent protest in every fiber of his being".[

In English, a 'commitment to nonviolent protest in every fiber of one's being' is a definition of what a 'pacifist' is.

(b)'Second, we have Nawi saying he beats people.'

(b) In the whole of the literature we have him quoted by Hasson in 2005 saying that when settlers beat up Israeli activists, they cringe and shrink away. He stated:' I don't cave in. If anyone beats me, I strike him back.'

This is another case, obviously, of Nawi 'bragging'. It's bragging because there is no evidence for it other than that single statement cherrypicked out of 20 years of coverage of his activities, and it goes against the numerous testimonies that he never hits back, blocks others from using violent means of retaliation. He stands his ground, when others run. It is quite interesting that Nawi should say that - as Amira Hass says, he's apparently a 'loud-mouth'. But if Shulman, Vardi, and many others, who have observed him for decades, testify to his non-violence;if the only court conviction for him 'raising his hands against police' was based on testimony that most commentators regarded as trumped up.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While I find your interpretation of why Nawi said what he said quite riveting, it seems to be missing any policy based arguments. On the other hand, you keep adding that he said it "once", which seems to be quite obvious OR. Do you have a source saying he only said it once? If you don't I'm going to have to remove that bit of personal interpretation from the article.

Also, you changed the tense of his statement. He said "If anyone beats me, I strike him back", implying that it has happened, as does the original Hebrew [5] you changed that into he "would strike back when attacked" implying it might take place. I'm going to have to revert that barring a good explanation of why you think it's necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted per NMMNG pending a source for the unsourced bit. I agree the article needs some major NPOV tuning. Lots of reads like some hagiographic religious book. Embarrassing to an encyclopedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. You reverted for other reasons. 'has been recorded as saying on one occasion that' represents the fact thatr there is only one source for the statement. My edit was the proper grammatical form to indicate that fact. You don't need to source grammar. As to people who are an embarrassment to an encyclopedia, well, I'll laugh over that while breakfasting abroad.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooooooh! Breakfasting abroad! How sophisticated and worldly! I can't even imagine the witty banter that must be going on around that table.

Anyhoo, both versions are grammatically correct, and we don't usually state we have a quote appearing in only one source when that source is RS (unless you can point me to some policy/guideline that says we do?). In fact, this seems like textbook OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

NMMGG WP:OR

NMMGG. In changing the text you provide a reason in your edit summary: the text was implying he was convicted and served time mainly as a consequence of his activism. the (short) list of offences he was convicted for should clarify

I had written

served several short stints in prison as a consequence of his activism,

This paraphrases Bronner Having spent several short stints in jail for his activism over the years, he now faces the prospect of a long one. Your rewrite is pure WP:OR. This is what you invent

for statutory rape, illegal use of a weapon, possession of drugs, and assaulting a police officer, and served several short stints in prison, including as a consequence of his activism

Bronner nowhere says what you now write: he stated exactly what I wrote. Worse still, 'including as a' forms a completely ungrammatical unidiomatic statement for native Englisdh speakers.

A revert of your edit is obligatory, since it is writing off the top of your head in defiance of the explicit wording of the original source.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A revert by Bad DSyer was also obligatory. That it was a tagteamish drive by edit, inattentive to the talk page, is shown by its restoration of the poor phrasing 'including as a consequence of his activism' already discussed here and shown to be inept (above). The Irish Independent articles fail consistently to distinguish rape from statutory rape, in their titles on this subject, and it is known they do so for a political reason: they were out to get Norris, and used the Nawi case, as proof he associated with a 'convicted rapist'. One could probably win a legal case on that: rapist in 'convicted rapist' trumpets violence, whereas statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty, not implying violence. The lead is in summary style, and we have one excellent source, the New York Times listing all of the issues for which he has convictions. To break that up, and introduce tabloid links to each incident (unformatted) is patent POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)