::I changed the bullets to numbers so the conversation is easier to follow, and moved your comments all into one place. Please don't put your comments in the middle of mine. 
 ::#The one you chose seems cumbersome to me. It requires additional clicks without adding any benefit for the reader or the editor. 
 ::#I questioned if GayNews is a RS per wikipedia policy. We have policies here. The objections are not baseless when you're using op-eds, not attributing them and not noting that these are friends of the article subject. 
 ::#She is talking at the Nawi trial but not about Nawi. Her political soapboxing does not belong in this article.  
 ::#He is not speaking in his defense here, he is giving his political opinions about what other people have done in other times at other places. How is this relevant to the article other than giving a platform for his politics? 
 ::#Again, it is not directly relevant to Nawi and is an obvious attempt to insert political opinions through the back door.  
 ::#Same reply. 
 ::#I meant both should be removed, not just the Ghandi thing. It's enough to say in the lead that he's controversial without going into what each side thinks of him.  
 ::@Nableezy: Could you elaborate a bit on how you think it's an improvement? Why would you consider a reader having to click on a ref number just to get something like "Shulman (2009)" and then have to click again to get to the actual link to the ref an improvement over clicking the ref number and arriving directly at the link?