Jump to content

Talk:Ezra Nawi/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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
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)

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)

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.
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?[1]--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)

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 [2] 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)
What a tendentious editor you are. NMMNG's edit was reverted by Zero000 with a summary that said "not supported by the source". Never mind that sources are not required in the lede (which is simply intended to summarize the article, where such sources are given) - You didn't see fit to chide him for not using the talk page, but see fit to undo my edit, which simply added the requested sources, which you did not read. Evidence of the latter is your false claim that "The Irish Independent articles fail consistently to distinguish rape from statutory rape" - the article clearly describes "Mr Nawi’s conviction for statutory rape in 1997" - exactly supporting the text in the Wikipedia article. But perhaps the height of this tendentious tag-teaming is one editor removing text with a claim that it is not supported by sources, and his fellow tag-teamer again reverting that text with the claim that newly-added sources (added specifically to address the previous excuse) merely repeat what existing sources already say. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
of course, you are a paragon of neutrality. Your late note here is incomprehensible. (a) 'sources are not required in the lede'. Knowing that, you added 2 extra sources from a tabloid, to the one already available which summarized a thoroughly sourced section below. You're confused in any case.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead sectionreads:

a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

It was appropriate to document that sentence, given the edit-warring over every word when it was written years ago, and we have Bronner, a source of the highest RS quality, rendering tabloid additions of the kind you thrust on the page superfluous.(per policy:'Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.')
Your additions were an egregious example of 'redundant citations', whose only warrant was to add to the footnotes the disinformation (violating WP:BLP) that Nawi was a 'convicted rapist'. The court didn't convict him of 'rape'. the court convicted him of having (consensual) sex with a 15 year old minor. It's called, I think round here, poisoning the well.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What exactly are you objecting to? The list of offenses is supported by the text and sources in the article. I left the "as a consequence of his activism" in there since it's sourced and I had a feeling you wouldn't agree to removing it, but Bronner doesn't indicate all of his convictions were related to his activism.
If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to suggest an improvement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Reread my response above ('served several short stints in prison, including as a consequence of his activism' is not acceptable English etc.), which you clearly haven't understood. Bronner states exactly what I wrote, and I didn't write all.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The text that was there implied all. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, but there's no reason not to add a few words that describe exactly what he was convicted of. Since Zero indicated his problem was the sourcing, it's unavoidable that someone would add sources, so perhaps you two could figure out which of the many sources for this information you prefer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I answered in detail your latest in my note to Bad Dryer. Both of you in any case restored incompetent English. Neither of you have given reason why Bronner's summary is faulty. You want to detail in the lead the complete list of offenses. Still, though you never address my objections with thoroughness, I'll give you a thorough coverage of the obvious things that should, and didn't, guide your respective judgements in tampering here
WP:LEDE summarizes, and you do not, as you did the other dsy, stack it with details that are not expanded on in the text. You wanna give the full monty, i.e. 'the illegal use of a weapon, growing drugs, possession of drugs for personal use, possession of drug paraphernalia, entering a closed military area, threatening behaviour, illegal transportation of a foreigner and disturbing a public servant' adding to that 'statutory rape, entering a closed military area and threatening behaviour' and a few other things? Well, the text alludes to all of that, and has no expansion of each case. For example I've searched for years to try and figure out what precisely 'the illegal use of a weapon' entailed. Sources refuse to yield evidence. Perhaps a check of the Hebrew press would clarify. What was the weapon? a pistol, a rifle, a baseball bat, a stick, a stone,(all are 'weapons' in legal language, as is a fist by a martial arts expert), in what context. Silence.
So there are at least three objections
(a)WP:LEDE. The Bronner generalization is a summary expanded in the text, whereas Bad Dryer's details are not expanded on in the article itself, which is against the lede protocol that reads:

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

.
The full list is not a matter of 'basic facts', and it is not expandable. Technically therefore it flouts the lead convention. Unless one can expand the details of his weapon and drug use, those details have no place in the lead. That's obvious.
(b)WP:BLP. This is the most important because we are dealing with a living person whose convictions are considered by many to be, in good part, politically motivated. Add that to the lead and per neutrality one would then be obliged to add 'These included convictions for the illegal use of a weapon, possession of drugs for personal use, entering a closed military area and threatening behaviour. His supporters claim many of the prosecutions -- including a high-profile assault conviction that triggered a worldwide petition signed by more than 20,000 people -- were politically motivated.'(Dearbhail McDonald.'Dearbhail McDonald,I am not a paedophile, says Norris ex-partner,Irish Independent 4 August 2009). That is mentioned in the text indeed, and could go in the lead summarized, but I have refrained from doing so, because the conviction list details cannot, as yet, be expanded. So it goes out as do the conviction details.
(c) I can't see in any lead, take Ezra Miller (we have no wiki article on Moti Reif, who was caught by Israeli police as a marijuana user, like 8-5% of the population) for example, where a minor rap for smoking hash is thought to merit lead attention. 'Entering a closed military area' again cannot be mentioned, though he has a conviction, for the simple fact that the meaning of a 'closed military area' is unknown to readers. It is a fiat made in an hour or two, often as not, to impede Palestinian access to non-state land. But the phrase itself suggests some spy intruding into a military compound or infiltrating a military camp who knows for what devious reason?
(d) Flagrant WP:Undue in a blp article. The lead has 274 words, of which 185, 67% of the text dealing with his legal problems. I thought I was being generous in allowing this kind of negative slant to have full exposure there. No, the lads want to egg the pud which already risks being read as unbalanced, because his criminal rap sheet is mentioned in three of the four standard paragraphs, which is way, way out of whack with what WP:BLP would recommend.
(e)The sources added by Bad Dryer are utterly useless, apart from breaking the format, since he provided a link without further details as the template used would stipulate. They're useless because they are boilerplate copy-and-paste mostly from sources already used in the text and listed in the bibliography. Apparently he at least didn't trouble himself to click on them to see if the 'new' sources from a hostile tabloid, added anything not already here.
In short, this silly frigging about overegging the 60% of the lead dealing with violence to ratchet it up towards the 70% mark is totally unacceptable, as any cool headed neutralist can see at a glance.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
(a) My edit added only information that is mentioned in several places in the article. Bonner's "as a consequence of his activism" on the other hand, is nowhere to be found in the article. So who's violating LEAD?
(b) I don't see how adding a short list of convictions violates BLP, particularly considering the amount of positive remarks you put in there. I find it interesting you're using the Irish Independent as a source, when you called it a tabloid when Bad Dryer used it.
(c) Yes, I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If I post a list of people whose convictions are mentioned, will that change anything?
(d) UNDUE is not about counting words. There are few articles about Nawi that don't mention his multiple convictions. This is an important aspect of the topic of this article, as indicated by reliable sources.
(e) That can be fixed by using named refs. And again you're calling the Irish Independent a "hostile tabloid" when you quote from it approvingly in your point (b) above.
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You refused to budge on the obvious. Your edit restored an unreadable piece of prose, that remodulated a simple grammatical phrase based on Bonner. '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' is a summary (See WP:LEAD as is dictated by policy, and refers to what is thoroughly explicated in the body of the article. That you are trying to hairsplit on this is, well, understandable, but it defies the obvious.
I made a statistical analysis of the content of the lead, which shows that it is in danger of violating, indeed probably violates WP:Undue in a context of WP:BLP. Try and ask the BLP persons if a negative 65% of a lead can be 'improved' by enhancing the negative profile. It can't. You have yet to reply satisfactorily to this observation. Waffling is not an argument.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You have my permission to correct any grammatical mistakes I may make in article space without bringing it to the talk page first.
Practically every single source on this guy mentions one or more of his convictions. The article mentions them. The lead should mention them. No source implies all or even most of his convictions are "a consequence of his activism" and neither should our lead, particularly since it's not in the body of the article. This is not rocket surgery. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, look at the size of the relevant sections. The "legal issues" section is by far the largest part of this article, and that should be reflected in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
You're walking right past the technical issues, and again conducting WP:OR. One example in your most recent revert.

some of which, according to Ethan Bronner, were a consequence of his activism.

Bronner doesn't say anything of the kind. He says

Having spent several short stints in jail for his activism over the years.

That 'some of which' is a patent intrusive inference, WP:OR.
The main point of your edit appears to be to introduce with two tabloid sources the designation of Nawi as a 'rapist'. The Irish Independent wrote this falsehood, which confuses 'rape' with 'statutory rape', an act of carnal violence with what sources say was consensual ('The Irish Independent has learned that the prosecution struggled from the outset to make a case against Nawi as the victim was reluctant to give evidence against the openly gay campaigner. McDonald 2011.) Doing that is poisoning the well, as they say, aside from the major objection. I.e. that McDonald, who is a legal scholar writing cautiously in the same Irish Independent tabloid you wish to add more articles from, already mentions both the statutory rape in correct terms, and provides a list of the charges for which he was convicted.
It is quite pointless to add more sources from the tabloid, when the one article from that tabloid we already use in our article alludes to the same information.

Nawi has a number of other convictions, according to Israeli media reports.These included convictions for the illegal use of a weapon, possession of drugs for personal use, entering a closed military area and threatening behaviour.His supporters claim many of the prosecutions -- including a high-profile assault conviction that triggered a worldwide petition signed by more than 20,000 people -- were politically motivated.(McDonald 2011)

Even were the list to go in, the logical edit would be to use McDonald, rather than the misleading tabloid junk you and Bad Dryer want to lever in, per Occam's law ('Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora' Philotheus Boehner, Ockham:Philosophical Writings, Nelson 1957 pxxi)
Finally, adding a list of indictments immediately requires an expansion per NPOV of the other side's perspective, as per McDonald:'His supporters claim many of the prosecutions -- including a high-profile assault conviction that triggered a worldwide petition signed by more than 20,000 people -- were politically motivated, ' and Bronner.
One of your new links was to a google search list.That's inept.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're rambling on about. I wasn't the one who introduced those sources. I thought it was ok to leave without a specific ref because all the information is in the body of the article. Your buddy Zero required sourcing. Someone else added them, using, again, a publication that's in the article (which you call a tabloid when you don't like what they say, but quote from approvingly when you do).
Anyhow, I'm fine with the new text, except for where you put "victim" in quotes, which you should be ashamed of yourself for, but it's pointless explaining why so I'll fix it later. Also the Mcdonnald 2011 ref doesn't work, it's missing the part in the references list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Zero (and drop this crap about 'buddy', otherwise everybody will call you, Bad Dryer and Brewcrewer 'buddies' whenever, as often, you automatically back each other in reverting) noted that the source Bronner did not add the list you added. So you were in error, a and he was right to note it. That this implies sources are needed is another question, since, as I noted, leads summarize, they do not give the details you added. Your 'buddy' Bad Dryer, added new sources, not reading the text with his ample provision of existing sources re the details, as documented in the article. Essentially, he was finding 'new sources' with false charges, instead of using the available sources, while ignoring WP:LEAD. That's another issue. The lead now needs expansion, since it is unbalanced in favour of the prosecution aas does not summarize the other side. I'll fix that later.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Those who actually study the literature on Nawi, rather than wanking on with attitudinizing, will note that this is in the sources. You know where you can stick your heavy handed and otiose attempts at being both vulgar and offensive (yawn),so I don't need to provide directions.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What's in the sources? That's it's not so bad for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if there's no coercion involved? That's exactly NAMBLA territory. Show me a source that puts victim in quotes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezra_Nawi/Archive_3&oldid=1136714976"