Talk:Ezra Nawi/Archive 2

Concerns so far voiced, and answered.

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


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


 * (a) ‘More generally this ought to be a very straightforward entry – this is just an ordinary guy who has some criminal convictions, later had some publicity for political activism, and is now in the limelight for an association with an Irish presidential hopeful. Nothing more. The article just needs known, certain facts and sources. Nothing more. As for user RolandR, he has a history of similar incidents on the Israeli and radical topics to his credit, possibly with accomplices. Some action here looks warranted, to help avoid further discredit on Wikipedia in English. Thanks for all. cckkab; (b) Rather unfortunate that it should all boomerang back now. Nawi has maybe more than purged any wrongdoing, and is a great guy for a good cause. Still the facts are the facts and should be open and be reported in a neutral way. I suppose to get this page moving again, it’ll get some motivated administrator(s) to fix this page – it won’t be me.’
 * RS provide far more detail on this ‘ordinary guy’ and published works contradict the editor’s assumption here. I have filled out the page as requested in (2) done


 * ‘Still no mention of Nawi's sex and drugs convictions since 1992.’
 * done in accordance with WP:BLP.


 * ’I don’t think the Nawi article deserves much coverage or that any of the cases deserve much detail. All rather unremarkable’.
 * cckkab’s request, now seconded by Brewcrewer. Unfortunately book sources like that of Shulman cover his work in extenso.


 * The article says "where Palestinian residents have for years been attacked by Israeli settlers". This generalization is not directly supported by either of the sources provided. (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * RS now adduced amply document this as a fact, films exist of most incidents discussed. Acaemic sources abound which state in detail the occasions where many attacks took place. These are in the article. done


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


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


 * ‘Despite the video evidence" editorializing (I suppose this is also based on the aforementioned editorial).’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * The phrase has been elided to avoid editorializing. The source is now McGirk’s article in Time magazine. done


 * ’"the judge was presented with over 100,000 letters supporting Nawi" the source here quite clearly says there was an online petition signed by 20,000 people, as does the independent.ie link provided in a section above. Not "100,000 letters".’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * The assertion is sourced directly to Nawi’s remarks in The Nation, and a source given for 20,000 people. done


 * A lot of stuff written in the encyclopedia's neutral voice is sourced to Nawi's friend Shulman. That can't be good for NPOV. (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * Shulman as a proportion is now much reduced, given the addition of two dozen further sources. Unfortunately, Shulman has to his (dis)credit an impeccably academic work on the precise area of contestation where Nawi is active. He is an eyewitness to many of the events narrated That he is Nawi’s friend is neither here nor there. Now one here questions Schlesinger as a source on Kennedy because they were friends, etc. done


 * ’it's atrocious encyclopedic writing.’ User:Biosketch.
 * One completely neutral admin (Ed Johnson), asked to review the rewrite, registered the (subjective) opinion it now reads well. done


 * I'll go ahead and tag all the Shulmans with Template:POV-statement.’ User:Biosketch.
 * This is a misapprehension about policy. Nothing says that a WP:RS source on a subject, based on eyewitness accounts, and subject to peer-review before publication by a first-class University Press should be hit with ‘POV-statement’ tags wherever cited.done


 * ‘He re-entered public attention in summer 2011, with the emergence of his ex-lover and Irish Presidential hopeful David Norris's attempts to reduce his sentence for the 1992 statutory rape of a Palestinian boy in 1997.’ I don't support this in the lede and suggest moving it to the section related to the offense. Off2riorob
 * Quite true. He came to public and international attention in 2007. I have adjusted to correct the misprision, adducing sources. done


 * ’Specifically regarding the lead, we're relying on an article by David Shulman for making judgments as to Nawi's character, in spite of the fact that Shulman is a biased party.’ (User:Biosketch)
 * The judgement is not of Nawi’s character, but Shulman’s interpretation of the style of his activism. Shulman’s opinion is balanced by a contrasting opinion by an alternative viewpoint source. One ‘biased’ source contrasted with another ‘biased’ source. Since the article focuses on his activism, the two viewpoints require articulation in the lead, which is a summary.done


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


 * ‘my addition of an external link to the official document of the court case involving Ezra Nawi back in 2009 . removed’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * As some noted, WP:BLP reads: ‘" Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".’ An all too brief discussion on a noticeboard here backed this objection. done


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


 * ’I've tagged the two UK Gay News refs with Template:Verify credibility.’ User:Biosketch
 * Complied with. The source has been removed. done


 * Someone needs to remove the ref to the Supportezra.net advocacy website pronto. #32, towards the bottom of the article.’ (User:Biosketch)
 * Complied with The source has been removed. done


 * ’I find the new reference formatting style cumbersome’. (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * No one else disagrees with it, two editors approved the choice made.


 * There are too many opinion pieces, editorials and self published sources being used here’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * Several opinion pieces have been removed, including Jaradat and Eldin. There is only one self-published source, but it is by Melzer in German. He has an extensive bio on the German wiki, and therefore is notable. He is a Jewish publisher. The breakdown of articles used at the present moment is as follows:-
 * 45 sources.
 * 2 books conforming to WP:RS
 * 1 book review in the NYRB of Shulman by a distinguished Israeli philosopher with direct knowledge of the subject who comments on the area under discussion.
 * I article in The Nation in which Nawi presents his case.
 * 1 al-Jazeera interview by Jacky Rowland, video with voiceover.
 * 3 editorials, one in the Guardian, one in Haaretz, and one in the Irish Times by a legal expert, all generally reviewing the case and the person.
 * 3 general overviews of the subject, providing details of Nawi’s whole life and activism in the context of West Bank/Southern Hebron Hills conflict (Luongo, Buruma and McGirk)
 * An appeal by Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and Neve Gordon, directly included, since it is referred to in several articles.
 * 1 background essay in The Guardian by Daphna Baram on Nawi, important because it was written before the hullabaloo.
 * 2 articles by wellknown film critics on the film Citizen Nawi, one with a negative impression, the other with a position evaluation (WP:NPOV)
 * 7 articles from Irish sources on Norris and Nawi.
 * 23 articles from the Israel Press, Haaretz, Ynet, and foreign newspapers, NYTs, the Guardian, consisting in direct reportage of Nawi’s work on the West Bank, his 2007 trial and its aftermath.
 * The overwhelming majority of articles are reportage, not opinion pieces or editorials. I think that a reasonable mix. I have elided anything I thought dubious. done


 * ’The quote from Karp (whom we learn twice is a former Israeli deputy attorney general) does not talk specifically about Nawi and is just political soapboxing that doesn't belong in the article.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * The quote has been paraphrased in the text. It is not WP:SOAP, since it is cited directly from the trial. You confuse evidence in court, with opinions made by wiki editors. done


 * ’ The long quote from Nawi in the 2007 arrest and trial section (some of which is block, some isn't) is also UNDUE political soapboxing that doesn't belong here.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * What a man says in a courtcase we report may be soapboxing, but quoting it is not soapboxing (which is an improper editorial judgement on the content of WP:RS). But I have dequoted it, by paraphrasing his points. done


 * ‘The long quote from Shulman hidden between ref tags (currently ref 29) is quite unnecessary to support the 3 words it's ostensibly a ref for. ’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * The quote is four lines, currently ref 29, is not long, and deals with an eyewitness account. Quite innocuous. The only grounds for challenging this are WP:IDONTLIKEIT.


 * ’Same for the hidden Karp quote in ref 39.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * Now paraphrased succinctly. done


 * ‘Shulamn's Gandhi thing doesn't belong in the lead. It's enough to say he's a controversial figure.’(|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * Actually it does, because the whole article deals with the controversy over whether he is an utter bounder and ratbag, or a peace activist who is non-violent. Shulman happens to be one of the world’s foremost academic authorities on Indian civilization, and on Peace movements in Islam there, as well as being an authority on the recent history of clashes in the South Hebron hills. We are all entitled to an opinion, but to say ‘controversial figure’ without clarifying ‘over what’ in the lead is rather censorious in its request for extreme brevity.


 * WP:IBID - "Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, . .Where there is disagreement on the use of quotations in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page for that article." (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * Quotes in the footnotes have been revised or removed to meet this concern. Those surviving are there in order to allow editors to see the textual basis on which passages thought controversial are based, or because the sources cited are foreign languages (Spanish/German). There is one quote or Karp in the footnotes remaining. I do not see a consensus for its removal.done


 * (a)WP:CITECONSENSUS - "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." (b)'WP:CITEVAR - "If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.’ (|No More Mr Nice Guy).
 * So far the consensus is for the change. You might have a point with the use of it in the piddling stub we had in August. But since I intended a considerable and complex expansion, and we now have 40kb not 6, a more sophisticated format seems more than justified. In addition, the editors objecting to the template or expressing reserves about it, have no significant record for editing the page.done.


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


 * OK, here's the more comprehensive list I promised.
 * (1)"regarded by some as an exponent of Gandhian civil disobedience" - UNDUE. One guy (a friend and fellow activist) said it. This does not belong in the lead. I suggest removing this and the "extreme left wing activist and troublemaker" thing and replacing with "he is a controversial figure". What the controversy is can be found in the article.
 * (2)"Kaminer influenced his activism" - according to...
 * (3)"belonging to a despised minority" - should be in quotes.
 * (4)The article says that Nawi adopted the beduin, "judging that their lifestyle was subject to an 'existential danger' for the way their fields were burned, or seeded with poison to kill their grazing stock" - the source does not say that this is why Nawi "adopted" them. It is someone relating a story he heard from someone else about specific incidents. Moreover, while Shulman may be an academic, this is a memoir not an academic work. It should not be included unattributed.
 * (5)"their wells poisoned, their aged beaten and their land expropriated" - sourced to an opinion piece. Should not be included unattributed.
 * (6)"He defends their right to harvest olives from their own olive groves when this is challenged by violent settlers" - sourced to an opinion piece.
 * (7)Do I need to list all of the opinion pieces used here unattributed? There are a lot more.
 * (8)"have been suspected by the police of attempting to assassinate him" - no mentions of an attempt to assassinate him, only of intentions.
 * (9)"In sworn testimony... David Shulman recalled an incident" - quote is UNDUE. You can say Shulman has said he saw him being attacked on several occasions.
 * (10)What "Nawi is on record as saying" should be in quotes.
 * (11)"In one particular episode in January 2003" - Shulman again. Why is this specific incident important?
 * (12)"Nawi rushed to put himself between the settlers and the harvesting fellahin to protect the latter, and a settler filed a complaint to police accusing Nawi of attacking him" - assuming AIC is actually a reliable source, do you happen to have the actual article rather than a link to an abstract in an student run web site?
 * (13)"Such permits are almost impossible to obtain..." - according to...
 * (14)"in his own defense... asked rhetorically" - this and the following quotes are SOAP. It is not a direct defense for the offense he was charged with, it's his political opinion.
 * (15)"Judge Ziskind, in her ruling" - should also be paraphrased.
 * (16)Regarding the citation style, as I said before it's already done so I see no point in changing it back, but you are now aware that in the future you need to gain consensus for it before you make the change.
 * No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)For a medium length article, the lead is notably short, and requires expansion. Since the article deals in two perspectives on how to interpret what Nawi does, those two perspectives must be covered in the lead.
 * (a) No one seems to object to these leads in wiki articles on similar figures (demonic, extreme 'left-wing' scoundrels)
 * (b)Gideon Levy:'Levy has been characterized variously as a "propagandist for the Hamas"[2] to a "heroic journalist".[3]'
 * (c)Ilan Pappé: 'His work has been both supported and criticized by other historians.'
 * (b) In Ariel Sharon's lead, he is called a 'controversial and polarising figure' and both negative and positive interpretations of his career are given due space, a perfect mirror of what we have here.


 * Shulman is one of the foremost experts on Indian civilization and languages, reviews works for major publications on figures like Gandhi (Lelyveld's in Harper's is the context), is a leading Israeli theorist of Gandhian principles, and has a decade of experience with activism in the area where Nawi operates. His view holds weight on all imaginable grounds, it is not that of some journo writing an op-ed. Your suggestion would leave the lead with 2 sentences, highlighting that he is like Joe the Plumber, and got into global headlines once. In any case, I have given attribution to Shulman, and provided a second source from Herschthal, who is a well-known writer for The Jewish Week. 'He is a controversial figure' only for the IDF and settlers, and that term 'controversial figure', though the preferred default term for any critic, esp. Jewish or Israeli critic, of the West Bank occupation, is flat, deceptive and POV-weighted. It is plunked into the Norman Finkelstein article (he first attracted controversy;Finkelstein's career has been marked by controversy;the controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research; attracted a lot of controversy), but not into the Alan Dershowitz article, though both are controversy-ridden. It is in Gideon Levy's article ('Levy's writing has aroused controversy.'), Noam Chomsky 's article ('far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have raised controversy'); Neve Gordon ('Gordon was well known in a high-profile controversy'); Shlomo Sand ('author of the controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People.') that kind of phrasing is nowhere evidenced in articles on figures like Steven Plaut, who are certainly, per sources, highly controversial.
 * In short, your suggestion unfortunately reflects code-language to mark critics of the Israeli occupational policies.
 * (2)"Kaminer influenced his activism" - according to...' No. Ethan Bronner directly interviewed Ezra Nawi and many of the details of his life are recorded by the journalist. 'According to' seeds doubts both as to Nawi's reliability and Bronner's authenticity as an interviewer. It would be sheer comedy to write 'according to himself'.
 * (3) ':*(3)"belonging to a despised minority" - should be in quotes. done
 * (4) 'adopted the bedouin'. (b) 'existential danger'. I've broken up the sentence into two, and provided, for the moment, the exact cite from Baram where Nawi is quoted. It is not a third person report (though there is an abundance of Youtuve video on this behaviour and hundreds of articles by reporters on the scenes saying these things are done). These are the ipsissima verba, quoted directly by the interviewer, Baram. My bad for using Shulman. done
 * (5) ':*(5)"their wells poisoned, their aged beaten and their land expropriated" - sourced to an opinion piece.' No, it is not an opinion piece, and attempts to subjectivize universally attested facts like this will be challenged. What Nawi says is confirmed by numerous reports by third parties who accompanied him to these 'events', as you will see if you read all of the articles cited.
 * (6):*(6)"He defends their right to harvest olives'. It's not sourced to an 'opinion piece'. Gideon Levy interviewed the Palestinians directly. The event was witnessed by the eminent Latinist of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Amiel Vardi, the event was filmed and you can watch it here, as he is arrested for the crime of defending and interpreting for an old woman surrounded by hostile soldiers.
 * (7)'Do I need to list all of the opinion pieces used here unattributed?' You seem to be confusing opinion pieces with direct reportage quite often.
 * (8)'"have been suspected by the police of attempting to assassinate him" - no mentions of an attempt to assassinate him, only of intentions.' Good point. I've changed 'attempting' to 'planning'. done.
 * (9)"In sworn testimony... David Shulman recalled an incident" - quote is UNDUE. That's your view, and merely an assertion, and not grounded in any substantive demonstration that this violates WP:Undue. It would certainly be odd to consider one short quote by an authority and eye-witness about Nawi's behaviour as 'undue' in an article with a lengthy excursus on a trial where he was indicted and convicted for riotous behaviour.
 * (10)What "Nawi is on record as saying" should be in quotes'. done.
 * (11) 'Shulman again. Why is this specific incident important?' It is typical of his life, and the article is constructed of events in his life, per RS. It is neither 'important' nor 'unimportant'. It is there on the record.
 * (12)assuming AIC is actually a reliable source, do you happen to have the actual article rather than a link to an abstract in an student run web site?'Well the abstract is now held only there. I am making enquiries to see if we can get a better source. So this should be considered as on standby.
 * (13)"Such permits are almost impossible to obtain..." - according to...' My personal view is that the obvious need not be footnoted in wikipedia. To write 'according to Shulman' would be silly because I, like anyone else with an interest in reality, can google up from reliable books or websites, official statistics or reports from NGOs or scholars of development studies which underline that Shulman is merely stating the obvious. Never attribute to a single person's 'opinion' what everyone knows is a statistically verifiable fact, in short. Here's a link to just one article which will direct you to the specialist literature that concludes
 * "The report, published last month by the Israeli human rights group Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights, makes clear that for the 150,000 Palestinians who live in the part of the West Bank known in the Oslo accords as Area C - 60 per cent of the total territory that comes under Israel's direct control - Israeli policies practically prevent any new Palestinian construction.'We have a system that deliberately allows Jewish settlers to expand West Bank settlements virtually at will, while for the 150 Palestinian villages and communities in Area C, applications to build are mostly rejected,' Mr Cohen-Lifshitz said. 'On average, 13 building permits are granted each year for Palestinians.'"
 * As you can see at a glance, Shulman's remark differs by one (12/13) from the figure given as released per month by the Israeli Civil Administration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents there' reflects Bimkom's expert analyst's view that on average, only 13 permits are granted each year.
 * If you like, I will provide 20 book or RS references for the platitude to the page. But I'd rather not clutter it.
 * (14)'in his own defense... asked rhetorically" - this and the following quotes are SOAP. It is not a direct defense for the offense he was charged with, it's his political opinion.'
 * I disagree. It's is Nawi's view, defending himself publicly, for the charge made against him, in the context of the trial. A quote from the article on a person, defending his integrity, when he has been condemned in law, is not WP:SOAP. which is what editors are asked not to do, not about the content of remarks made, and on the record, by the subjects of an article. You appear to object to having anything quted from Nawi or from anyone about him. Yet wiki articles subject to far more intense, community wide scrutiny than this have no problem in profusely larding the text with extensive quotes. Take Alan Dershowitz, whose page is closely guarded by wikipedians known for their severe readings of wikipolicy in such articles:
 * (a)'Bazelon was my best and worst boss at once ... He worked me to the bone; he didn't hesitate to call at 2 a.m. He taught me everything—how to be a civil libertarian, a Jewish activist, a mensch. He was halfway between a slave master and a father figure." (49 words)
 * (b) "the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance."(80 words, blowing his own trumpet, humbly)
 * (c)'(Israel will) announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings (66 words)
 * (d) "Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them—on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians"(46 words)
 * (e)'"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.' (57)
 * (f) "Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights." (60 words)
 * Nawi's quote has 69 words, it is the only quote from him, and no where on the scale of the profuse and at times lengthier quotations on Dershowitz's article.
 * Of course, one could argue Dershowitz is someone, Nawi is, as some editors believe, a useless figure not worth a scrap of our attention. But sources say otherwise.
 * (15)"Judge Ziskind, in her ruling" - should also be paraphrased. Why? I could think of a dozen pages where the judge's words in a ruling are cited extensively, See Grafton Green's ruling in the Scopes Trial, etc.
 * (16)'in the future you need to gain consensus for (template changes) before you make the change.' For the record, I have used this template on several articles bookmarked and edited by a large community of editors. You are the only wikipedian, and one who has for the record not even attempted to edit this article, who has cautioned me on this. Consensus comes from editors who are editing articles, not from anyone who just wanders in to make comments on a talk page. But, that said, I have found several of your minor points useful, and adopted them. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Putting the opinion of one person (who happens to be a friend and fellow activist) in the lead is UNDUE. Your long lecture on code words is TLDR. Of the three examples you gave, two use the same same kind of language and in the case of Gideon Levi, you could find dozens of people who have used the exact same language about him (from both sides).
 * (2) If he says that Kaminer influenced him, it should say that's what he says. It can not be stated as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice.
 * (4)Nonsense. If your intention is to get me to say: 'Nawi reported to Ethan Bronner who reported to the New York Times, whom Nishidani reports as writing, that he was influenced by Kaminer', you should read a prose manual for journalists on style. A click on the link is all the reader needs to verify.

Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But, hey, I'll add it anyway. done Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My intention is for you not to state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go.done indeed overdone. Do we need to also add, it is claimed that he was born in Jerusalem, as he told Bronner? Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (4) It should be in quotes and not the neutral voice).
 * The relevant phrases are quoted. You cannot ask me to quote everything Nawi is reported as saying to interviewers, and then, volte farce ask me elsewhere to cut down quoting.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should either quote or attribute. You can not state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You've forgotten your original point. 'It is said' etc. stands in one sentence and is not connected to the rest. The original request has been satisfied. If you wish to invent another request, add it to a separate section.doneNishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (5) Should also be in quotes. And I don't know many serious journalists that start their serious journalistic articles with a story about their mother giving away their jeans.
 * Read the New York Times. It is the standard technique used in US journalism to start an article with a vignette.Nishidani (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not quite dispassionate journalism, but never mind. The information in the article is something Nawi said and you can't state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The clause:'their fields were burned, or seeded with poison to kill their grazing stock, their wells poisoned, or demolished, their aged beaten and their land expropriated,’ is preceded by '(Nawi) judged. Attribution is clear. You should read the page before raising outdated objections. done Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (6) The article says the he helped them pick olives and later called the police. Not "defended their right to...". I do agree that this is not an opinion piece. Must have been looking at something else.
 * done.
 * (7) You seem to be confused about the requirement to attribute stuff rather than state it as fact in the neutral voice.
 * No, not confused at all. Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite confused. You can't state as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice a claim made by the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are often saying Nawi claims where reporters present at the scene report what they saw. despite your best efforts, this article is not a showcasing for what Nawi says or says he did. It reports what reliable third parties saw him do.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (9) It's not only one short quote, Shulman is quoted repeatedly in this article. It is indeed UNDUE to give such prominence to the opinion of one person.
 * Answered several times. One writes to sources. Shulman is a key source. I do not 'quote him repeatedly'. I use him several times almost invariably in paraphrase. He happens to be the leading published authority on this area and its problems.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take this issue to the appropriate board tomorrow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, notify this page where. I don't hang round boards, or track what people do, and need a heads up. I'll be curious to see who turns up. You might inform them of the quantity of information from Shulman I have kept out of the article because I don't care to ruthlessly press certain things. E.g.
 * "A cold wind is blowing, and the skies are heavy with cloud. There’s a bus-stop at this corner that we’ve named Ezra Nawi Junction, and there’s even a large colored graffito on the wall that reads “We are all Ezra Nawi”—this from the day last year when Judge Elata Ziskind sent Ezra to jail for a month for doing the sorts of things we were doing today. (He was, she said, undermining law and order.)The graffito has been painted over by an entirely sinister one: “Kahana was right.” Mostly settlers use this bus-stop. I think someday when the nightmare is over, when the occupation is no more and Palestine is free, there will really and truly be a plaque or a small monument here in stone, in Hebrew, in honor of Ezra and the non-violent struggle he has led for the simplest, most basic rights that all human beings own by virtue of being born. But for now, the settlers are still running the show, and another black graffito on the wall of the bus-stand reads: paam halachti le-eretz rechoka, pagashti sham ’aravi ve-natati lo boks ba-af shelo. Eizeh keif lihyot yehudi. Mavet la’aravim.(“Once I went to a distant land. There I met an Arab, and I smashed him on the nose. It’s fun to be a Jew. Death to Arabs.”)"
 * Rather than overuse him, I've been distinctly discreet.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (11) Again, you are picking stuff one guy wrote and peppering the article with it. That it is mentioned in an (arguably) RS is nice, but why is it notable enough to be included in the article?
 * As per (9) Shulman is not 'one guy'. He is our main source, and one of the most distinguished academics Israel, the US, the world has. His work is everywhere praised for its erudite incisive and comprehensive mastery of the subjects that interest him. The obverse of your argument is a proposal for wiki policy that would read:'If a reliable source contains much relevant data on an event or person no other source contains, do not use it often, even if this means the article cannot be written.' Hilarious.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (13) Your opinion, while very interesting is not relevant in this case. If you find reliable source for reporting such facts reporting it as fact, that's great. Otherwise it needs to be attributed to whoever is being quoted as saying it.
 * You've failed to reply. I did not provide my 'opinion'. I provided, and offered to provide more of the same, a source which gave the statistics which underlie what Shulman wrote. It turns out the statistics are the same. If a fact is stated by a source, it is a fact, not an opinion, and does not require attribution. Otherwise, 'according to Shulman, the world is round'. If I were writing 'the world is flat', I would attribute. Since you are unfamiliar with the facts, you take them to be opinions. A common malady in this area of wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (14) No, it's Nawi making a political statement. He was accused of hitting a policeman, not of blocking roads or refusing to connect anyone to electricity. If you have a problem with the Alan Dershowitz article, go ahead and fix it.
 * It's Nawi making a statement in his defence regarding the trial we report. There is nothing in policy which says such material should not be used. It is immaterial that you read this as a 'political statement'. Most commentators are surprised at his indifference to politics, something not shared by wikieditors, who see politics everywhere.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (15) Because it looks like a transparent attempt to "balance" the excessive quotes above it. Comparing it to an article that is specifically about a trial doesn't really make much sense.
 * A word on the English language. Things that are 'transparent' don't 'appear/look' like they are transparent. The article must achieve balance. Nawi's defenders have their say. The judge's opinion in passing sentence is given due attention. NPOV. I cited comparable wiki pages on trials. You failed to respond to the evidence that there is, in this regard, nothing unusual in the way I cited the judge's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (16) For the record, the guidelines are very clear on this issue and for the record there is no requirement for consensus to come "from editors who are editing articles". Not to mention that had I dared touch the article while you were in the middle of changing it to your liking, I would have probably got one of your condescending lectures.
 * The guidelines say anyone can edit. A consensus is achieved by editors who edit a page. It can be technically subverted by rallying around numerous blowins to add weight to one side or another. We all know this. I see a lot of arguments I have an opinion on, but which I do not jump at, because it would look like a shabby piece of playing the numbers racket. There are several editors who have raised issues over two months here. I have gone through all complaints, on both sides, and addressed them according to my lights. Their opinions are this point constitute the basis for a consensus. Persuade them.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 90 percent of what you've written is assertion, with a vague wave of the hand at policy which doesn't mostly stand up to scrutiny. Any number of wiki pages that have been challenged by both sides display, now that they are consensually stable, the sort of things you arbirarily complain of here, as though this page were some bizarre anomaly. Aside from the usual crew of bystanders, you seem to be the only one who finds this screwed up from top to bottom.


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


 * You even admit you don't read my replies (TLDR), so replyiong is pointless. I can see no policy here, just animus against the subject being accorded a decent page. Since you won't listen to me, and since consensus is the game, I'll leave it to you to persuade the others who have actually worked on the page that you see policy violations where I don't. Your animus against Shulman is groundless. Biographies are based on eyewitness testimony. Many writers of biographies from Boswell to John Hall (author of the recent biography on Ernest Gellner) knew their subjects intimately. To repeat 'he is a friend' is silly; to say Shulman is overused is silly (no one complained of my use of mostly Hill's standard source to write the life of Ted Strehlow, but then neither is pro-Palestinian). So, convince the others, by all means. I've done what wikipedia asks of editors, to actually work on building the encyclopedia, rather than kibitzing around to knock a fairly well-constructed page off its feet. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So first you ask me not to edit the article because you're working on it and when you "get off the scaffolding" you'll see about the issues, and now you're complaining I'm not editing the article but only raising issues? That's nice.
 * I don't have any interest in the Alan Dershowitz article. I'm not going to read about your problems with it here since they are not relevant to this article. I read with great interest the rest of what you wrote and answered in detail, so pretending I'm not reading anything is rather dishonest.
 * Anyway, you want me to fix the problems myself? I'd be happy too. I hope it won't result in a long monologue where you cast yourself as the poor oppressed peasant and me as the lazy heartless aristocrat. That was amusing the first time, but has grown a bit old. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have any interest in Alan Dershowitz. You have a strong interest in a minor article no one looks at, which you clearly think has all of the problems of the Dershowitz article. No one else in wikipedia sees the problems with the Dershowitz article you see menacing this page. No one so far (of course rings-ins can be summoned at will) seems to think this article is 'problematical'.


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


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


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


 * Pretty obvious, totally predictable, and I suppose the game is to manoeuver in such a way that we get the same boring edit-wars, traps for potential AE complaints, and a chance to fill the predictions of many on those arbitration pages where it was predicted I'd soon be hauled back there for sanctions for poor behaviour. It's not an 'aristocratic' attitude at all. It's a your average middle class speculator's market-calculation of getting the most return on small investments of time and energy. Of course, as the IDF said in a policy statement, 'we're not equipped to give a rapid and efficient response to pacific behaviour'. Some people need drama in their lives. Some people need to remind the world that drama is everywhere, and infractions of our decency afoot, . . But today's another day. Still, I will closely examine your last batch, and review the article. Life on wikipedia wasn't meant to be easy, and let no one accuse me of laziness.Nishidani (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've interleavened, though you asked me not to, my replies to your remarks. The other format is totally unworkable, or so laborious in forcing readers to scroll back and forth, that I have had, in the interests of clarity to third parties, to reply thus. This is not a conversation between two, but an exchange of views to which all editors are party.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering I have never edited or participated in a discussion regarding the Alan Dershowitz article, a simpler explanation would be that I am just not interested in the guy. Don't let that stop you from projecting your mindset on me, though. I liked the bit where you accused me of having a support team and summoning ring-ins. That was almost funny. Should I wave to your lurking posse? Nah, they'll jump in when they feel they're needed.
 * All you have to do is play by the rules and nobody will be able to "trap" you. I understand this might be a bit difficult for you, considering your tendency for long winded diatribes about the multiple faults you find in people who don't agree with you, but I'm almost sure you can rein that in.
 * Anyway, while I find your theories about me quite riveting, could you focus on the issues? Like all those places where you use the encyclopedia's neutral voice inappropriately? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll interleave. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


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

RS/N
I started a discussion about Shulman's book here. Not noting it in the previous section since it would probably just get lost in there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Page ratings suspended or removed?
I can't rate the page. The Page ratings dialogue box is there. I enter ratings. But when I reload the page, the ratings box says there are no ratings. First time I ever saw this. How is this possiblle.. might some admin have suspended or removed the ratings? Or something more sinister afoot? (this is by far the most bizaree, most sinister wiki contribution I have ever come across) cckkab (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, cckkab. I just for the first time tried to rate it (giving an average or slightly bove average vote, I admit, rather egotistically, and I got 'ratings' saved, and when I clicked to see ratings, it turns out from 19-24 people have rated the page. Dunno why it worked for me.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Template:Copyedit
Not having had the chance yet to give the article a thorough proofread, there are clearly aspects of the prose that would benefit greatly from the contribution of a native English speaker experienced in polishing up punctuation and semantics and features of that nature. I'd do it myself, but it demands time I don't have at my disposal right now. Basically, per MOS:QUOTE, quotation marks should look like ", excepting cases of quotations within quotations. There's one instance of the word "convey" for which the correct noun form should by "convoy." Stuff like that.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as totally improper. You only mark that sort of thing on neglected pages, which this isn't. You especially should not post dubious templates on an article that has a dozen eyes from native speakers looking at it, and checking the page regularly, while affirming you yourself, while spotting problems of punctuation,haven't the time to lift a finger. There are no obstacles to editing the page to correct such minor lapses, errors, oversights. You marred the page for a month with a template that only told the reader mischievously that there were citation problems, without explaining on the talk page what these mysterious problems were. So, I removed it, because I'll be more than happy to copyedit, check semantics etc., along with anyone else here interested in such matters. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you're through copyediting and are persuaded the prose is up to par, feel free to remove the template again. It'll be 1RR, but no one'll hold it against you.—Biosketch (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I got two external editors to look at it, one an admin. They said it read well, so I think it improper to post that notice, since anyone just has to ask, or directly edit, to tidy up such minor things. No, I can't revert, because, whatever our personal takes, there is a 1RR rule governing the page. But the tag, within a half an hour, should be removed, as it is, as I noted above, unnecessary on a constantly worked page.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll happily remove the tag myself if I'm still online when I'm satisfied the copyedit issues've been resolved, which I think I'm allowed to do since I'm the one who added the tag, even though I already reverted once. But there's still a sentence in the lead that doesn't end with a period, single quotation marks where there should be double, and I'm just scrolling through the article haphazardly. Why aren't I doing the copyediting myself? Trust me, it takes a lot of willpower on my part to resist that urge. But it's the kind of thing that demands a level of concentration and application I'm not able to devote to the article right now because of all kinds of distractions around me.—Biosketch (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. I spend on average 6 hours a day doing chores, for other, often younger people, some on tutoring kids, two on property upkeep, and a few on wiki, before turning to my professional interests. My gerontologist mate says it may stave off the symptoms of senility for a year or two. Trust me, courtesy and generosity are as important as willpower in making the world liveable.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay 25 edits, correcting about 40 things. I have to chop winter wood for a few hours. If you note anything else that needs attention, drop a note. I'll catch up later this afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A complete rewrite of the page is warranted
Like I and others said above, this entry is quite problematic. I'd rewrite it entirely 1) a far shorter entry is merited, like in Hebrew (which in contrast to the English version, is rather decent). Just facts. Not opinions on facts. There are actually aren't that many notable facts. So the article can be far shorter. 2) remove citations that are mere eulogies (I'd keep most of the references and footnotes though) 3) frame the entry around a linear time progression i.e. following the progression of Nawi's life. I'm only ready to do this work if I think there is some consensus around it, that I won't get abuse (RolandR, please can you have the decency to remove what you wrote on my page a few months ago). It remains surprising that a few users continue to claim that there is no evidence of earlier convictions. Contrary to what some people claim above, the documentation is extensive (event today, for what it is worth, a 4-page article on Nawi in some editions of the The Sun today, no internet link (yes I know, you want to eschew some of the inferences from this source)) cckkab (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Doubtless users like RolandR and Nishidani will be opposed to a far shorter article (Nishidani by the way is by far the most prolific in contributing to the Nawi article). What do others think? cckkab (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never posted abuse on your talk page, and it is your prerogative to remove anything from the page. RolandR (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand your objection, it is that too much is written, and that he needs a short page, like the Hebrew one. A short page would presumably consist of his sexual offences, and run-ins with the law, without elaboration. Let me analyse the implications of what you are saying.
 * "'a few users continue to claim that there is no evidence of earlier convictions. Contrary to what some people claim above, the documentation is extensive.'"
 * That means, as it was before, a page that, in its reductive succinctness, omitted the whole raison d'etre for his activism which is what got him into trouble, and would effectively present Nawi as a drug-consuming, pistol-wielding, pedophilic trouble-stirrer with several convictions. You say there are 'few notable facts' and this demands a very brief entry. Then you complain that the literature on his criminal convictions earlier is extensive, implying that needs to be (exhaustively) mined.


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


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


 * There is a good write-up of Nawi here, the most rounded and complate yet, and there is no reference on the Nawi page. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/1029/1224306692417.html  Indeed the page, while a bit better than a few months ago, remains a jumble with lots of POV introduced through third party quotes, making it overly long.  It for me clearly does not attain Wikiepedia standards. But the incentive to do anything about it is low, if activists are determined to keep it that way, and administrators do nothing to clamp down.  Believe me, intelligent supporters of Nawi would see the interest in a more neutral page. cckkab (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was only published today, and few editors will have seen it yet, so there has been no time to add it. I agree that it is informative and balanced. But I must make a note of caution: it contains at least one significant error. Reuven Kaminer was never the "leader of Israel's communist party". He was, as far as I recall, Jerusalem branch organiser in the 1960s, and then head of a dissident faction which eventually left to form the Israeli Socialist Left. So I would be reluctant to use this article for facts beyond Nawi's own account, without double-checking. RolandR (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * cckkab. 'The most rounded and complete yet?' Without bringing my training in source-criticism to bear, I think most readers of the article will detect at a glance that it owes a heavier debt to our article than to the interview with Nawi. Our article corrected several significant errors in many sources, and got the Reuven Kaminer detail right *, and the Irish Times's article duly accepts these corrections in what was a skewed account in article after article.
 * It does provide us with three useful snippets - his Yom Kipper War role, his hashish smoking, and an admission he knew the boy was under the legal age. But the rest is a faithful recasting of our comprehensive article. These details have been duly entered. I'm not an 'activist'. I certainly do not go round to the Spanish wiki to write garbled details of Nawi's sex life, or work up that detail for the Gaelic version, speaking as one editor. What you take to be 'neutral' would mean, I assume, dwelling at great length on his statutory rape conviction, and eliding the numerous comments by many distinguished Israeli human rights activists that he has worked hard to better the life and conditions of a persecuted peasantry in the Southern Hebron Hills. Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


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

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

NPoV issue - lead
I don't know at all this man. But reading the lead, he appears to me as a criminal and nothing else. Maybe that this picture complies with what sources and the article say but that seems strange. Is the lead complying with NPoV ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If he's a 'criminal', then of course most Palestinians are criminals. 99% of his police charge sheet results from harassment from the occupational authorities. He deserves the Nobel Prize for peace, as a light under the nation(s) he has worked 20 years to defend from the most violent in his own community.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I think the lead should be re-written because the 1st sentence, which is expected to bring the most relevant information about him says : "He has been charged for numerous infractions of the law, convicted for a number of offences, and served several short stints in prison as a consequence of his activism.[2] He has been described as a "Ta'ayush nudnik",[3] and "a working-class, liberal gay version of Joe the Plumber".[4][5] Some regard him as an extreme leftist activist and troublemake" (...)
 * Per WP:NPoV, WP:Due weight and WP:BLP we should start by what he did (good and less good) and only after the consequences and critics (good and bad).
 * My 2 eurocents :-)
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a point. I've rearranged the sentence order. The problem is NPOV, hard to establish when he is so widely admired, and yet, by a number of institutions, bitterly detested. RS tend to highlight his 'heroism' rather than emphasize his run-ins with the police, settlers and the government. To get the 'dirt' spread about him, which conflicts with everything people who know him well, you have to read trivial crap from Arutz Sheva and other non-RS gossip mills, like this, this or this, for example. If you want a real laugh at Arutz Sheva's reliability against a reasonable knowledge of the history of Susya, read this. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think that I misunderstood some key sentences due to English.
 * After reading 2 articles link in the lead, I permitted myself to add a "fact" talking for him and what seems to be an important part of his activities in order to balance the high number of his condemnations.
 * I also added a paragraph to put criticism in a 2nd section.
 * Of course, feel free to change anything back. I really don't know this man.
 * (edit conflict)
 * Thank you for the links. Unfortunately A7 doesn't make me laugh anymore... :-( Settleman upsets me and I think I should take this wikibreak that I plan to take before I start reacting like Malik...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a break certainly. I regard this place as a form of therapy against one's natural human frailties, esp. allowing one's emotions to get the better of one's analytical judgement. In that sense, learning to interact lucidly and calmly with editors whose POV might strike one as upsetting or even nauseous is a positive thing: there is a certain debt to them. The real attrition is not on the emotions dealing with real events, but the waste of time bad editing causes. Nawi, like Shulman and other of his colleagues at Hebrew University, have learnt this the hard way: we, in the virtual world of mere description at a long distance from the facts on the ground, should try to pick up a lesson too, if only because it is conducive to NPOV, and also to the historical vocation: the best groundbreaking history of the Holocaust was written by virtue not only of his genius, but also because its author, Raul Hilberg, was gifted with remarkable analytic detachment even while following the great Marc Bloch's oft cited dictum (before he was murdered in that apocalypse):'Le bon historien ressemble à l’ogre de la légende. Là où il flaire la chair humaine, il sait que là est son gibier." Amitiés Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)