Talk:Ezra Nawi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

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.[1] 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)

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.[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)