Jump to content

Talk:Ezra Nawi/Archive 4

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

"The statutory rape charge dragged on for 5 years because the victim was reluctant to give evidence against him."

Could someone kindly explain how the above sentence was assembled from the information in the McDonald 2011 ref? Because as far as I can see, it's not even close to what that article is saying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No explanation is needed. Some advice evidently would be to take a remedial English course, though a subordinator like 'as' does occasionally toss non-native speakers of English, which, since you are not one, is no excuse.
I wrote:
The statutory rape charge dragged on for 5 years because the victim was reluctant to give evidence against him. [1]
Which you removed (not what the source says. see talk shortly)
The source states:

Nawi fought a five-year legal battle, involving two appeals, to avoid being jailed for the statutory rape of the boy. . . .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

I.e. the five year legal battle from the 'outset in 1992 to 1997 had the prosecution 'struggling' (I rewrote 'dragged on', but it can be varied elsewise, as(because) the victim was reluctant to give evidence.
Any serious editor not out to get the subject of the article would, if some doubt existed as to the precision of the paraphrase contested, have simply modified it to make a, to him/her, more adequate alternative, if one exists. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A more neutral wording would be, He fought a five year battle battle partly because the victim was reluctant to give evidence against Nawi. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh really!! That's not only what the source doesn't say, and the 'partly' in WP:OR (once more) it's inept English. The reason for him conducting a 5 year legal battle was patently not because the boy didn't give evidence against him. The battle was over the court's verdict. Stone the crows.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, maybe a remedial English course would be helpful. Kindly show where the source connects the amount of time the appeals took to the lack of evidence from the victim. The source says he was convicted and then his appeals took 5 years, not that the whole case took 5 years or that it "dragged on" (does the source say this is longer than normal for this process?), then a few paragraphs later that they learned (ie, nobody else has reported) that the prosecution struggled to make a case because the victim was reluctant to give evidence. In no way do they connect the two. That's your OR, your ellipses covering several paragraphs notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Nope. You are asking me to explain what I have explained in detail, ignoring any serious reply and instead, asking for an extended tit-for-tat exchange. We had a source that no one contests. We had a formulation which you contest. Rather than observe the proprieties by remodulating that the text to your taste at least, you expunged it and complained in a new section nothing in my formulation could be justified. You know you too must also occasionally do some work here. I'll be busy for at least tomorrow, elsewhere, so you have plenty of time to figure out what you think would be the correct way to paraphrase that source. Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Your text states a correlation the source does not say or imply. There is no correct way to paraphrase and keep the correlation you invented. I'm going to remove the text later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant causation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ McDonald 2011.

No More Mr Nice Guy - until a few months ago the rape was cutely hidden under the section of "prior convictions and brushes with the law". Wasn't the brushing with the 'tush' of an underage boy rather than with the law? You will never guess who wrote it that way! 109.253.203.147 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Brushes with law", lord that is funny. And terribly dubious and dishonorable conduct. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Putting victim in quotes was much worse IMO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Both of you fail to understand the conjunctive meaning of and which is a pretty serious flaw in basic English comprehension. I've just added another two exemplary instances of 'brushes with the law'. You might consider unsaddling the moral high horse you both have mounted. Of course what Nawi did consensually in 1990 was deeply flawed, though culturally not unusual in that Sotadic zone - the classic case is Jonathan and young David - as a great scholar once described it. But the use to which it is put is, as one can see in the alacrity of editors here, instrumental reflecting the tabloid spin on this. After all if 30 IDF soldiers, and perhaps several Americans, screw a 12 year old girl on an army base, and when tipped off by Social Services the army ignored it for 2 years as 'not of its concern' (Arthur Neslen below) (Yaakov Katz, 'IAF base commander struggles to grasp rape scandal,' Jerusalem Post 30 April 2006) that will blow over quickly in the news cycle. No one will be convicted of anything more than 'conduct unbecoming', and serve detention from 3-7 weeks. Why? Because neither the victim nor the rapists were human rights activists. And of course, I haven't heard many news follow-ups of the numerous Palestinian boys arrested and anally assaulted while in detention by their IDF captors. Hypocrisy. No, hang on. You can't believe Palestinians. Their testimony is ipso facto 'political', indeed, an incitement that smears the noted 'purity of arms'. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
As usual, you bring out the SOAP when you run out of policy based arguments. But that's ok, at least now the article is in line with the sources rather than your wishful thinking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Nope. You should check Bad Dryer's edits. He wrote:'due to the length of time between the offense and the start of the appeal process,' which is an egregious example of the WP:OR you impute to me. Of course, you haven't bothered to fix that, if indeed you even noticed it. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
McDonald, 2011 - The passage of time between the offence and the appeals process also created difficulties for the Israeli authorities, according to a ruling issued by the Jerusalem High Court. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Bad Dryer wrote:'The statutory rape conviction was appealed twice. The prosecution’s case was difficult due to the length of time between the offense and the start of the appeal process,' You saw that, and didn't touch it.Nishidani (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In restoring:'The prosecution’s case was difficult due to the length of time between the offense and the start of the appeal process,' you have repeated his abuse, approving exactly the inference from a source you disapproved of in my edit. A process is a temporal matter: 2 appeals ran for several years. 1990-1997.'Nawi fought a five-year legal battle, involving two appeals, to avoid being jailed for the statutory rape of the boy.'Nishidani (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So it's "the start" that you object to? If you could be precise and concise, that would be helpful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As usual, policy for you means whatever keeps in what you want, or whatever can be twisted to keep out what you dislike. My 'soap' scrubs the sneer (a trademark) in your obnoxious insinuation I edit such issues by perhaps buying into, and diffusing NAMBLA promotional material. Lastly, I did an obvious corrective edit any rational editor would do, rather than lazily delete on factitious grounds. You could have done it, but no. far too 'collegial' with the anti-Semitic 'enemy', I guess.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind. They're at the forefront of these kinds of disgusting attempts to remove protection from minors. I bet they too approvingly cite Burton. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay. You can't refrain from trying to poison things. I've remarked on your behavior in making this sick insinuation at the appropriate board. Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope they read this whole discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
So do I. You say I 'repeatedly' tried to justify sex with a minor. There is no evidence for this absurd claim.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Hello, as I have always respected your unbiased editing, and now that the unpleasantness with the other editor has hopefully been resolved, I'd like to have an adult conversation about my edit you reverted. In the lede, I added to the sentence "...activist, pacifist and convicted pedophile." According to Haaretz, Ezra admitted in court (note: HIS OWN ADMISSION) that he had "consensual" sex with a 15 year old boy. The dictionary definition of a pedophile is an adult who has sexual desires and/or performs sexual acts with a young (some say "prepubescent") boy. In other words, Ezra states he is a pedophile in court without using the actual word but regardless, was indeed convicted of statutory rape. http://www.haaretz.com/relations-with-ezra-nawi-threaten-to-derail-norris-irish-presidential-hopes-1.376165 The fact that he is a convict of this crime absolutely belongs in the lede given the far-reaching impact this act has had (i.e. in Irish politics). But I am certainly aware of your sensitivities towards anything which may jeopardize the rules regarding Biographies of living persons. So, reaching out to you here: what do you see is the best wording to capture this aspect of the article?Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless the word "pedophile" occurs in the name of the crime he was convicted of, it would be an outrageous BLP violation to use it in the article. Actually most reasonable people would not consider sex with a consenting 15 year old to be pedophilia even if they consider it a crime. This is not the sort of thing people described as pedophiles are generally understood as doing. Zerotalk 07:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I'm seriously amazed at that above comment. Pedophilia is in fact a specific term relating to an attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Not every human matures at the same rate, and any given 15-year-old may or may not have reached puberty by that age. If not, by definition, anyone committing sexual acts with that individual would be by definition a pedophile. I'm almost outraged that this needs to be clarified on Wikipedia.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Trinacrialucente. This is not the place to discuss Pedophilia.Loose confusions between the distinct issues of paedophilia, one of the most execrable forms of human abuse, and statutory rape, or between rape and statutory rape are being made here that violate clear distinction in legal terminology as they do the BLP rules. Every effort has been made to blur, erase or hide this on a BLP article, in contempt of WP:OR, WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. The facts are amply covered in the lead and the body of the article, and there is no evidence he was a paedophile (There is some vague suggestion he might be ἐρώμενος/παιδικά, the contrary of a paedophile temperament, but that is none of our business.)
99% of the time people show up to edit this article, it is in order to egg the pud on his 1992 conviction, or other cases where he is indicted for a serious crime, as recently. This is done, not in order to get his wiki profile right, but in order to spin him out as a dangerous 'crim' posing as a human rights activist, and therefore as someone to be removed, so settlers can finish off the ethnic cleansing of the South Hbron Hills. This article languished for years at 4,700 bytes, and was an object of chronic edit-warring by 2 parties: those who wished to roast Nawi on the spit of his 1992 conviction, and those (pro-Palestinian) who wanted to keep that underprofiled, or out. I accepted the Israeli POV position that full exposure to the details of both his homosexuality and the legal case was legitimate. I accepted the other side's point that Nawi is more than just an obscure crim with a rap for statutory rape. I brought the article up from 4,000 to 80,000 rapidly, and this remained stable. Were the POV-spinning group interested in human rights abuses in this area, they would be dutifully writing articles on numerous complaints made by Palestinian minors, as young as 11, who consistently complain of being sexually molested by their IDF wards, in conditions of detention, or indeed in creating articles about real, serial paedophiles, abundant in the area, as they are the world over, and thus they would be writing articles on people like Avrohom Mondrowitz, one of many protected for decades in Israel. They don't. For this kind of trash doesn't, I suppose, help the 'cause' that has assumed great rhetorical, undercover and legislative vitality in recent months, namely to smear human rights campaigners. Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the source does not support the statement explicitly, but it is clear to me that it is the intent. However, NMMNG was within his rights to challenge it. I think rather than removing the statement altogether, it could be rephrased to agree more closely with the source. I suggest: Nawi's court case, which included two appeals, took five years to conclude. The prosecution encountered difficulties due to the length of the process and the fact that the minor was reluctant to testify against Nawi. A plea bargain was eventually struck in which Nawi was sentenced to six months in prison, of which he served three. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We have

The statutory rape charge and conviction was appealed twice. The prosecution’s case was difficult since the victim, one year under the legal age, was reluctant to testify against Nawi. After 5 years, the court ruled the relationship had been consensual, sentencing him after a plea bargain to six months of which he served less than three

You suggest

Nawi's court case, which included two appeals, took five years to conclude. The prosecution encountered difficulties due to the length of the process and the fact that the minor was reluctant to testify against Nawi. A plea bargain was eventually struck in which Nawi was sentenced to six months in prison, of which he served three.

I think the only content difference is the substitution of 'victim' for 'minor', and 'the statutory rape charge' for 'Nawi's court case'.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. This is what happens when one parachutes into a discussion. I was looking at the section content not the lead. Another difference in my suggestion is the point that the length of the case was cited as a difficulty (more precisely the court cited the long time between the event and the appeals process, but I paraphrased it a bit). There are also some omissions and discrepancy in the section content. The content in the section does not mention the reluctance to testify. The section states (citing the Irish Times) that Nawi knew the age, while in the McDonald source he states that he did not indeed know the age of the minor. This should be resolved as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, all of the legal sections need reworking. I've been hanging back, while downloading a large number of articles, from re-editing top to bottom because the UVDA case naturally generated both expansion and edit-warring, and I thought it best to hold back until both the dust settled, and the intensity of editors diminished. I'd noted while doing so that there is a source conflict between Nawi's statements (he's called a foul-mouthed loud mouth by some of his admirers) over the years, and that needs, as you note, to be brought out. There is also a lead expansion of the UVDA case that, at the moment, looks bloated since both the Shin Bet refused to offer help to the police, who reflect the Border Guard interests in the SHebron Hills, and the judges have so far chucked out the case. But I prefer to leave it as it is until investigative journalists throw some light on the underlying context of the incident, Ad Kan, who 'Moussa' is (some say a Palestinian from Yatta others say an Israeli Arab), more light on the ostensible victim, Abu Khalil, a man who is registered as dying of a heart attack sometime after his name as a willing land vendor was handed over to his family/ or the PA. He is reported as carrying brass knuckles or a knife in one police handout, and one thinks: 'If the police examined a car and found something, surely in their report they can distinguish between a knuckleduster and a knife', etc.etc.etc.
Reportage on these things is atrocious, at least in English sources, and perhaps, after a few obvious tweaks, all would do well to just wait a little to see how things develop, if sources do follow up articles.(I may be wrong, but the whole story sounds like a replay of the John Profumo affair. It doesn't look to me like Nawi was interested in Palestinian rights until he was convicted. After he was, he has spent 2 decades fighting for them, to the point of bankruptcy - a bit like Profumo cleaning toilets for 4 decades.)Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Nawi was certainly politically active long before the statutory rape conviction. I came across him in Jerusalem during the first Intifada (late 1980s), when he would go to Jerusalem every Friday to give roses to the Women in Black picketing against the occupation. My own recollection is not a reliable source, but in the article we actually do cite an acceptable source for the same information.[1] So he has been fighting for Palestinian rights for at least the past thirty years. RolandR (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks indeed Roland for correcting me. I deserved a rap over the knuckles for the way, condescending and know-allish, I put that. Actually you told us that, now that I think of it, some years ago, and it was unconscionable of me to forget it, and write what I wrote. I was in a rush, no excuse, but did not mean he hadn't been at all active. I let the Profumo analogy playing on my mind this last month, get the better of me. I recall at the time he was dragged through the mud, how disgusted many people I knew felt, and I am not speaking of Conservatives, about it, esteeming him a good man, with a social conscience. But the scandal made him into an extraordinarily good man, and that is the connection I meant to make. What annoys me is that most of what we have to go on is a mixture of smear and eulogy. The eulogy is warranted - Shulman and Vardi's testimony is proof of that - but his life, inner or practical, is obviously far more fascinating than has so far been documented (just think of the complex meld of Iraqi/Mizrahi/gay elements, marginal identities in one man, within the Zionist world, to which one might add the lower class life, transformed in the alembic of conflict into the utterly selfless, cheery, practical idealist courage, empathy and resourcefulness to rescue the most marginal, and most biblical people, in Palestine. I hope he gets a biographer with some psychoanalytic depth some time in the future, who can do justice to the man. It's the only justice he's likely to get). Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bronner says 'activism' not 'actions'

For the nth time, NMMGG, you are altering the source language at key points. I'll revert this. As to Massie, the two external editors who commented (User:Darouet and User:MjolnirPants generally supported his inclusion. Bad Dryer's edit summary was, furthermore, patently false as a reason. Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one who changed "activism" to "actions".
Please explain what exactly Massie is supporting in the lead, and why this blog is necessary other than to push once again the idea that statutory rape should not be a crime since the minor consents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
activism changed to actions by NMMGG. It is irrelevant who authored it. In restoring it, you changed 'activism' in the source, corrected in the article, to 'actions' which is a total distortion of the source.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So go ahead and fix it. I'm fairly sure you understood it was not my intention to change that, and I really don't understand what you think you gain from repeatedly pointing out small errors you can easily fix yourself. Also, kindly refrain from signing stuff with my name.
No word on what Massie is supporting in the lead? Also, since it's an opinion piece, why is it not attributed (I know why, it's not directly supporting anything. It's an easter egg. But I'd like to see how you explain it). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You're sure I understand your 'intentions'. In the meantime, you persist in denying I understand my own, and ascribe to me intentions that are light-years away from any sane perspective on these issues. Since you asked me to report you on this, I have acquiesced. See hereNishidani (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't answer you re Massie because you ignored my point that at RSN two outside editors saw nothing objectionable in that source, and rightly so, given that Massie has high credentials, is writing on his own page in a highly respected magazine, and is evidently not a blogger dispensing personal opinions. The content cited is not 'an opinion': it is a piece of legal fact.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to guess what my intentions were, since I said explicitly that I'm not touching that part of the sentence since it is sourced and I didn't think I have consensus to change it. I also explained what I'm doing at length in the es.
Massie is not a legal expert. The piece is marked as a blog. Please explain what it is supporting in the lead and why this blog isn't attributed. That RSN thinks it may be used doesn't mean it must be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
On closer reading, it's obvious Massie is offering his opinion, see where he said that the court "plainly accepted [x]... If that had not been the case one would have expected [y]". That's speculation, not fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Two external editors disagree with you. I went to the RSN board, and no one objected. As to blogs,see Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

The Spectator is 'the oldest continuously published magazine in the English language'. It has editorial oversight. The Scottish editor is Alex Massie, who writes regularly for The Times. The conclusion is obvious. He is perfectly acceptable, and is stating a truism you can't challenge because it is an established legal distinction, (b) which Massie duly referred to in discussing the subject of this article.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I will jump in here as a) I'm the one who changed "Activism" to Actions and b) I have absolutely no "horse in this race". I did so as a completely impartial observer looking at the facts (and no, I do not support Jewish settler incursions into land that has been designated for the Palestinian State so no one can argue I'm trying to paint Ezra as a criminal to invalidate his activism). The lede reads "and has served several short stints in prison as a consequence of his activism." and we know that ONE of his "short stints was NOT because of activism, but because of statutory rape/sex with a minor. Ergo, to say that his prison "stints" were solely due to his activism is deceptive. Saying they were a consequence of his actions (be they activism or pedophilia) is more accurate, regardless of the verbiage of the actual citation (which we are not bound by, FYI as that would mean we would constantly be committing plagiarism). THIS was the motive behind the change, and nothing more than me trying to get the text as accurate and far away from WP:POV as possible. Trinacrialucente (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You have failed to take the whole paragraph in which that sentence is embedded, into consideration.

has been charged for numerous infractions of the law, with convictions ranging from statutory rape, illegal use of a weapon and possession of drugs to assaulting two policemen,[12] and has served several short stints in prison as a consequence of his activism.

His short prison sentences here relate to sentences arising from his activism (like calling an IDF officer 'stupid'), not to his conviction for statutory rape. The phrase is adjunctive (introduced byand). Bronner is very careful in his language, and everything written on the NYTs is combed by sub-editors for (what they consider to be) factual precision.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Wrong; I absolutely DID take that sentence into consideration. A conviction is not the same of a "stint" in prison. So once again, as the paragraph reads now, his "stints in prison" say were only due to his activism, which is a lie/misleading. And that's on you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. In English prose, the statement does not not allow the construction you make of it. We have a generalization of his police record, including convictions for serious offenses, having nothing to do with his activism. Statutory rape has nothing to do with activism. The following clause, introduced by and ('in addition to which'), he has been imprisoned briefly for things relating to his activism. This is as clear as day.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Trinacrialucente, as you know since I brought this up earlier. The way it's worded now implies that all his convictions were a result of his activism.
As for the Spectator's editorial control over Massie's blog, do you have any proof of that or are you just asserting? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I construed the sentence. Neither you nor Trinacrialucente have. It is no use voting if you won't parse the sentence in a way that corroborates your opinion. An unargued consensus of two cannot trump the normal reading of a simple piece of prose.Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Conviction appealed

A close reading of the source shows it does not say the conviction was appealed. And that is for good reason. Here's the actual court ruling. What was appealed was the acceptance and implementation of the plea bargain, and in fact the high court overturned the district court's ruling (which is not specified). So most of the sources got it wrong, but we can't fix it because this is a primary source. But at least nobody said it was the conviction that was appealed, since it looks like he copped a plea in the lowest court, and that plea bargain is what eventually stood in the high court. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the reportage on Nawi (and the I/P conflict generally) is copy-and-paste then tweak. There are lots of bits missing. Nawi's father was reportedly quite violent to him as a child etc.etc., something that I add not to exculpate) What you say doesn't surprise me, - I see it everyday checking several reports of the same incidents- all copying, no field reports - and obviously until one gets a scholarly paper on the conviction, secured by Roni Bar-On in 1992 and two appeals, we can't do anything more than follow the existing sources. You are incorrect in writing:
'nobody said it was the conviction that was appealed'
'According to the paper, he then provided a subsequent nine-page character reference and detailed legal submission to Nawi’s legal team leading the appeal against the first trial, which had found Nawi guilty of underage sex with a Palestinian teenager.(Cathal Dervan, 'Norris admits Irish presidential campaign in ruins over support for Israeli child abuser,' IrishCentral 31 July,2011)
As far as one understands Norris's 1997 position, he advised in his legal opinion against Nawi making a plea bargain based on an admission of guilt. But again, snippets are useless until one has a thorough and systematic treatment of the affair.Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"Appeal against the first trial" is not the same as "appealed the conviction". As far as I can tell he pled guilty from the first trial. It is clear from the High Court ruling that they weren't discussing the merits of his conviction, but how the plea bargain was applied, and as I said, the High Court actually overturned the district court's ruling (again, about the plea bargain, not the actual conviction). So we have false information secured by "reliable sources" in the article right now. Typical. For example, all the information we have in the lead right now about the prosecution's case being more difficult because the minor wouldn't testify and the amount of time it took is applied incorrectly. The court is acknowledging these are legitimate reasons for the state to apply the plea bargain in a way the minority view judge in the district court suggested it should be, not generally about the prosecution's case being "more difficult". Also "the High Court upheld the conviction upon final appeal" is false (the conviction isn't what was appealed and anyway the court overturned the lower court's ruling), as is the claim that "it found the relationship had been consensual" (it doesn't discuss the specifics of the case). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
He was convicted in 1992 and, per sources, went through two appeals. The shorthand, if your summary is correct, is inadequate, if in his appeals he challenged the terms of sentencing, not the conviction itself. Since he appears to have pleaded guilty, he can hardly have appealed the conviction. Yet that is what well informed sources, most from Israel state. All this confirms that 90% of the journalism we customarily use for all these articles is shoddy. Your reading is useful, but WP:OR, which is silly but which all editors who know a subject well suffer under. I know a lot of important detail in several subjects that I can't unfortunately edit in because so far reliable sources in those fields, in so far as I have checked them, haven't woken up and done their homework. Until we have authoritative reliable sources examining the case we can't tamper, as far as I understand. Perhaps User:Zero0000 might look at this. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I know there's really nothing we can do about this. RS trump everything else. That's why this encyclopedia will only ever be as good as its weakest sources, which are obviously newspapers. Personally I don't like to put stuff I know for a fact is wrong into articles, even if supported by RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ezra Nawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ezra Nawi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezra_Nawi/Archive_4&oldid=1079256054"