Talk:Breaking the Silence (organization)

Top
I'm not sure that this article is a NPOV or provides any meaningful information about the issue.Cpaliga 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

it provides the only information concerning the movement on Wikipedia right now. it describes the movement and the reason why it was created, how is that not meaningfull??
 * As it was when I found it, the article was definitely not NPOV and was probably created by a member or supporter of the movement. I edited it to remove POV while attempting to leave information regarding the goal of the organization. The article did not however provide any information about whether Breaking the Silence has any real impact. Without perspective, it doesn't seem encyclopedic. That being said, I would support an unbiased expansion by somebody who is knowledgeable about the organization. Cpaliga

"Breaking the Silence" is a noteworthy Israeli organization that has garnered press around the world in the last few years. Its recent tour of US campuses was controversial, prompting the Zionist Organization of America and the Israel advocacy group, "Stand with Us" to request that one of BTS's sponsors, the Union of Progressive Zionism, be ousted from the umbrella Israel-advocacy Israel Campus Coalition (The ICC's Steering Committee unanimously rejected the request.)

At this point, any attempt to delete the article can only be viewed as an attempt by opponents to muzzle the group. The article will be expanded in the near future, and will continue to present at NPOV. JeremiahHaber

Check?
A direct quote from reference no 2 reads: Amongst visitors to the gallery were people who expressed their wish to give witness about things they had seen, things that happened in their presence, things they were part of, things they initiated and carried out.

It is also customary for the opening description to be an un-cited summary.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger. Thanks for adding "alleged."ShamWow (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "servicemen"
Both on the page and in the above discussion (which would probably benefit from having headings added), the word "servicemen" is used. I suggest a more suitable term would be IDF soldier, that is entirely gender neutral and all-inclusive. Among the many female IDF soldiers, present and past, are those who serve or have served at West Bank checkpoints, and increasingly in combat units. The argument that "servicemen" is "understood to include the female" is beside the point when a suitable equivalent and universally understood term may be substituted. I would, of course, not do so on the Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected; although service personnel would be the more correct term....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Critic, new section
There is more than necessary critical responses such as quotes there is better to have them all in one section. That look more encyclopediac. Toolsother (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonimity
The claim is that they are anonimous because of an order. There is no any order that prevents a reserve duty serviceman of trporting anything to the media in Israel. So far no evidence exists.--Rm125 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orders to Israeli soldiers against speaking out publicly
"Breaking the Silence maintains that the testimony is anonymous because of IDF orders to Israeli soldiers against speaking out publicly"

This has been erased since the reference doesn't say it.N reliable sourse for this claim is given. --Rm125 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was certainly a source for saying that this is what BtS claims. Nor is there currently any WP:RS to support the idea that their claims are untrue. Rd232 talk 07:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There was certainly a source((( No this is yor mistake-reread and give specifics))) for saying that this is what BtS claims. Nor is there currently any WP:RS to support the idea that their claims are untrue((( not relevant If somebody tells Mary is a whore- Mary does not need to prove that she is not a whore but it is NESSESARY to say that there this is not a fact. This is for an accuser to prove,ask your attorney, genius.) --Rm125 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think - with your excited analogy - you've entirely missed the point. There is a source that says BtS claims this. There are no sources saying BtS did not claim this; nor are there any sources saying the BtS claim is untrue. If you have such sources, produce them. (See WP:V.) Rd232 talk 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read my previous post? --Rm125 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't please reread and think for 2 minutes about it --Rm125 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read your post, now return the favour and read mine. And if necessary, no original research policy. Rd232 talk 22:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, by adding your unsourced claim in the place you add it, it looks like it's sourced to the BBC article. This is substantially worse than merely WP:OR. Rd232 talk 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK looks like we reached a compromice here, I just added "Allaged" witch has the same effect. --Rm125 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the opening chapter
"By publishing true accounts of soldiers, Breaking the Silence hopes to "force Israeli society to address the reality which it created" and face the truth about "abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property" that is familiar to soldiers.[1]"

This is written from the biased point of view, definately not neutral poin of view.

Suggestion to rewrite:

"Breaking the Silence hopes to "force Israeli society to address the alleged abuse of Palestinians, as well as claims of looting and destruction of their property" as experienced by IDF soldiers and reserve servicemen.[1]"

Let me know if this vertion looks more "neutral" and less bias --Rm125 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. You can't rewrite direct quotes. Rd232 talk 07:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No re-phrasing of quotes.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys haven't understood what I meant. The problem is not a quote but keeping a neutral perspective as to Wikipedia Policy. Here is my suggestion fot rewrite:


 * Breaking the Silence hopes to "force Israeli society to address the reality which it created" and face the allegations of "abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property" according to the soldiers.


 * This is as opposed to: Breaking the Silence hopes to "force Israeli society to address the reality which it created" and face the truth about "abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property" that is familiar to soldiers

I think it is reasonable by all accounts. Let me know what do you think. --Rm125 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By publishing "true accounts" of soldiers
I recommend to rewrite it to "By publishing soldiers allegations" There is a difference here by "true accounts" and "allegations". By all accounts "true" to them doesn't mean "true" to IDF. I strongly suggest to rewrite.--Rm125 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question. What is the best way to rewrite the opening chapter?
I don't see the way to rewrite the first chapter. Any advice? --Rm125 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ten Israeli based “human rights” organizations
The list is not nessesary since you can read it in the sourse and among other reasons it doesn't contributes to the article. Edited for clarity. --Rm125 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Last reverts
Rm125, if you would like to make such substantial edits that is fine, but pls discuss them here before erazing the whole paragraphs. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rm125 absolutely does not need to discuss his edits here firstly, but I agree that they certainly deserve better edit summaries to justify. --Shuki (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim,some edits are for clarity,some for misspellBing, some relevant refs,some NRS. Pls. make your point-point by point.--Rm125 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Labelling of Avigdor Lieberman's politcal stance on his Wiki article
Quote: "A large number of mass media sources within and outside of Israel have labelled Yisrael Beiteinu and Lieberman as far right or ultra nationalist. Others consider him right wing or a populist.[41] However, in general, Israelis are divided on how to characterize Lieberman's politics." Jim Fitzgerald  post  07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What's your WP:POINT? This is an article about an NGO, not a place to add perceived weasel words about people. --Shuki (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shuki, you are millions of times right that Wiki is NOT about the POV! But, I am just mirrowing the wiki article about Lieberban, where it says, among others, that Lieberman is regaded as far right, populist, right, and even ultra-nationalist. Besides that, there was an Offical Statement by the Ministry of Foreing Affairs (headed by Lieberman) that protested EU members against funding the BtS. So this is the offical stance of the Israel about the BtS and its activities. This is what the referenced RS article says.

(My personal view) is my view and has no place in Wiki. But if you want to further discuss the topic just between us then just send me a private message at my page, and that message would be dispatched to my e.mail. thanks anyway for raising the issue,  Jim Fitzgerald   post  17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian funding to BTS
I deleted the part saying BTS tour was funded by Palestinian organizations.Just because someone wrote it in his article,doesn't make it right.The BTS donors list is on their web site,un bases accusations are inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.208.18 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ..and I've reverted you. The statement is supported by the source.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I reverted the addition of this as "irrelevant, duplicative, POV, opinion, sourced to NGO Monitor". I don't have much to add to that. Rd232 talk 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * it might help if you explain how it is "irrelvant" (since it directly discusses criticism of BtS). and could you explain how it is "duplicative" since this is new material. and please explain "POV" since it is sourced and based on facts. and, yes, please explain "opinion" (see POV). and yes, two of the three are sourced to NGO Monitor. please explain why is that an issue? Soosim (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. 1. the first sentence is duplicative - the anonymous nature of the testimonies is already covered, this is not disputed so mere mention of it isn't valid criticism. The claim about seeking war crimes charges is vague and if true doesn't belong in the criticism section. 2. Harel's commentary is mere opinion, it doesn't convey any additional information, and there is no evidence his opinion is notable enough to merit inclusion here. His claim doesn't make any sense anyway, he's criticising BtS for deviating from a mission ("seeking justice for specific injustices") which AFAIK is not their stated mission, to a path that is their stated mission ("exposing the gap between the reality which they encountered in the [occupied] territories, and the silence which they encounter at home."). That's not valid criticism. 3. The activities of BtS members are irrelevant unless those activities are endorsed by BtS; and the content is quite possibly a WP:BLP violation as well ("anti-Israel activists" - really?). 4. The strong non-neutrality of NGO Monitor is not hard to divine from its WP entry. Rd232 talk 18:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the material sourced to NGO Monitor. NGO Monitor are not a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia. Also, WP:NPOV is a mandatory policy. The section 'Due and undue weight' explains the inclusion criteria for material. That includes "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". NGO Monitor publishing something on their website doesn't make it a significant viewpoint published by a reliable source. Significance is demonstrated by the weight given to the view in reliable sources so if NGO Monitor says something and it is not picked up by secondary sources like Jpost etc it does not meet the inclusion criteria. We don't get to include things just because we like them or because we think they are significant views. The sources decide what is significant. As for Harel's balanced editorial/analysis and the cherry-picking of a specific negative quote from that source, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should present balanced information "in a neutral, dispassionate tone". If, for the sake of argument, Harel's views are significant then why is it that the only information that gets included is that quote ? These edits are, in my view, a clear example of POV pushing with no attempt to provide balance and comply with the mandatory policies of this project.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Shaul
The "Yehuda Shaul" link within this Breaking the Silence page redirects to this page. Does anyone know if there previously was a page for Yehuda Shaul that was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatan79 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits
This article seems to be very biased and takes a strong Palestinian apologist POV. It lacks any information about the numerous times the organization has been found untrustworthy based on their unaccounted for testimonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2244 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5939611.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Some" in the lead
I wanted to open up the conversation about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breaking_the_Silence_%28non-governmental_organization%29&type=revision&diff=724195515&oldid=724167788 this "who?" flag]. I'd earlier edited "opponents" to "some" because I believed it to be more appropriate to a NPOV encyclopedic style. Who are we to cast those who offered this criticism as "opponents?" I recognize that the use of "some" may be WP:WEASEL in the context where the article doesn't then back up the assertion. I believe having this formulation in the lead is appropriate as per the policy in WP:WEASEL as per this exception: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution."

Thoughts? PPX (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I put the "who?" tag there, so I figured I'd better reply. It seems to me that Danny Lamm, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, and Philip Chester, president of the Zionist Federation of Australia, are the only people making the criticism, according to our article's sources. We should identify them, not magnify their criticism by making it seem like it's coming from more than two people. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If these are the only folks making the claim, then I wonder if we shouldn't consider it to be undue weight for the lead altogether? PPX (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear to all of us that a short Google search can find a plethora of people criticizing the organization. It just so happens that these two people (Lamm and Chester) were cited in the source, but we all know very well that it is not only these people making the claim. I think the "who" tag is unneeded, but if this is a burning issue I would suggest adding more sources, or finding other sources than Haaretz that talk about the critical way the Israeli society looks at Breaking the Silence, which shouldn't be difficult as there are many. Eym174 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think Eym is (mostly) right here. I had in fact done a cursory search for other criticism from more notable players before making my comment above, but I did not find appropriate sources making the claim articulated here: "anonymous testimonies exploited to further a political agenda." The most notable of the negative charges were not so much substantive, but rather were ad hominem. Our options are (1) to find RS with criticism that matches the substantive argument now in the article, or (2) to change the argument in the article to reflect what the narrative in the RS (even if they are just ad hominem), or (3) a hybrid of 1 & 2, or (4) to strike this element from the lead as undue weight.
 * Whatever we do with the lead, I do believe that the ad hominem attacks from quite notable folks (i.e. the Prime Minister) need to be included somewhere in the article. I just haven't had the time to do it myself. PPX (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the article should be expanded to include reasonable criticism of the organization that has been reported by reliable secondary sources (i.e., no press releases or op-ed columns), within the limits of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons . (I don't think that last part can be emphasized strongly enough.) And then the lead should be expanded to summarize the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I made an adjustment to the lead. Please speak up if there are any issues with it. We'll still need to come back and expand the article. PPX (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

BtS or Breaking the Silence
There seems to be random use of the two along the article.I think it should be consistent.Kigelim (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." You have just edited the article. Could you review your edit in terms of your record as measured against the stipulations above? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the information not well sourced and written in a clear manner? Kigelim (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove [citation needed]
At time 1:08:30 Drucker says both that he is supports BtS and the sensational part.Kigelim (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section
As far as I can tell, the criticisms were reported and discussed by secondary sources- Ha'aretz, the Times of Israel, etc.. If there's a reason t delete those, let' shear it.Epson Salts (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that you've addressed WP:V, show us that you also value WP:NPOV by adding some positive assessments as well. Zerotalk 08:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already has a "Support" section, so NPOV is addressed. Epson Salts (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will once again recommend that you learn what a secondary source is. A newspaper column is not a secondary source if it is the source of the criticism. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to actually read the sources you are removing without basis. The criticism came from soldiers, and Ha'aretz reported their criticism. Epson Salts (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * MShabazz is certainly right with respect to Amos Harel. These statements come from an opinion article, and as such are primary sources. The fact that they are printed in an opinion section of a newspaper does not make them notable; rather they would need to be quoted in a secondary source (a news article, an academic work, etc) to qualify for our encyclopedic use.
 * The Ron Ben Yishai one takes a bit more work. Here we have a newspaper-affiliated blog picking up in it's entirety a statement by an organization created to attack Breaking the Silence in which they quote Ron Ben Yishai. This one takes a little bit of common sense with respect to the guidelines. Among other issues, the author (Benjamin Anthony) does not pass muster on the matter of the professionalism requirement. see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USERG.
 * Then there is the article by Gerald Steinberg. (It's a bit strange that the link is to a PDF of the article posted to a POV-pushing, sock-puppeting organization. But setting that aside for the moment...) By my read he does not say what he's being represented here as saying. If the passage can be found where he says that Breaking the Silence is promoting anti-Israel lawfare, please post it here. Otherwise it's synthesis or a plain old fabrication. PPX (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What you wrote above regarding Amos Harel is simply incorrect: It is not an OpEd, and was not published in the opinion section: here the URL, with the part you missed in bold: http://www.haaretz.com/news/gaza-testimonies-diverting-the-debate-from-the-real-issue-1.280139, and when you click on the link, it takes you to a page that very clearly says, right at the top "Home > News " Epson Salts (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Support" is based entirely on primary sources such as advertisements, emails, and Facebook posts—albeit ones reported on in news articles. Harel is a notable commentator, so there is really no reason why his published "Criticism" is less worthy of inclusion than any of the material in "Support"—after all, the whole point of the "Criticism" and "Support" sections is to quote attributed opinions. That op-eds are reliable for the opinions of their author is hardly controversial, as Malik Shabazz (who has a long history of citing such sources when they fit his POV) knows perfectly well. To be fair, parsing the text more carefully reveals that Steinberg accuses "Michael Sfard, Israeli attorney and legal advisor for Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence, and others" of involvement in lawfare—rather than Breaking the Silence directly, so I did jump the gun on that one.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to criticism by TheTimesAreAChanging on the Support section: the fact that these things that happened are reported on in a reliable, secondary source is a necessary condition for us to include them in Wikipedia. Were Harel's perspective to have been reported on by similar reliable, secondary sources then it too would meet this precondition.PPX (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Harel's column is "news analysis", and it is a mix of reporting and his own opinion. You can compare when he writes "The IDF Spokesman's Office dismissed Breaking the Silence as a private body focused on media manipulation. Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, a resident of the Maaleh Michmas settlement, demanded the anonymous soldier witnesses identify themselves" (which is reporting, but was not quoted in our article) and when he writes "The organization has a clear agenda: to expose the consequences of IDF troops serving in the West Bank and Gaza. This seems more of interest to its members than seeking justice for specific injustices." (which is Harel's opinion, and is what our article was citing). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, I have removed the material once again. If anybody puts it back before consensus develops that it belongs in the article, please expect to be reported at WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree with Malik on this, but anyway the criticism section should be pared down because it is excessively long. Mostly it consists of different people saying the same things and as such it is repetitive and boring. Zerotalk 02:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the same can be said of the support section. What is your suggestion for a pared down criticism section? Epson Salts (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The same approach should be applied to Harel's perspective as presented in the lead. If we don't have consensus that it belongs in the article at all, then certainly it doesn't belong there. PPX (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As for WP:ONUS, I really can't understand what is the problem with Amos Harel's critisism. Amos Harel is not just another "right-wing" talkbackist who go and slam this group or a populist politician, he is a known commantator who belongs to the same political camp of Breaking the Silence. There is also no problem in adding the source per WP:BIASED since there is in-text attribution. But it seems going by my logic will not do anything, so here, a secondary source. If you want to be NPOV, go and write ...Amos Harel wrote "Breaking the Silence…has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classified as a 'human rights organization.'", in addition to that, Harel stated that despite the organization’s agenda, its claims should not be ignored. My problem here is that you claim "there is no secondary source" but the fact you simply remove it without searching for one. Took me less than 15 seconds.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Bolter's suggested text is sensible, even if his secondary sources are lackluster. There is still the Weight issue raised by Zero and endorsed by Epson Salts. PPX (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What secondary source? An op-ed by Aaron Kalman, the foreign media coordinator at NGO Monitor, can only be used as a source for Kalman's opinion, not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not being used for facts, it's used to show secondary coverage (for something that doesn't even require secondary coverage). Everyone here disagrees with you - stop wikilawyering. Epson Salts (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you, socky, and secondary coverage is required if the criticism is going to be added to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Behave or you'll be blocked agin. Everyone here disagrees with your statement that secondary coverage is required, yet they indulged you and provided it. There is consensus to include this, and you need to stop wikilwayering. Epson Salts (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to assume good faith in this conversation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Come on folks. Tone it down. I think it might be best to ask for an unbiased opinion. The hostility here is too thick. PPX (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's refrain from litigatory prevarication. The ONUS is to reach a consensus, and the content proposed by bolter is only objected to by one user who need not approve of every edit made to the page. ONUS alone is not grounds for exclusion, or else every edit made without prior consensus could be reverted if someone deems it objectionable. What is your reason for excluding this MS? It is reliably sourced, it is notable, it is not bold, its presented in an objective tone and it provides balance. The secondary source argument is disingenuous. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge...." Which is exactly how this source is being used.--Monochrome _ Monitor  16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the substance: As 1chrome quotes in the policy on primary sources, they can only be used as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." But that is not the case in this instance. I also believe that the case for notability is weak (as is my support for Bolter's proposed language), and that's where the secondary source issue exists. On ONUS: the thing to do when consensus isn't immediately reached is not to run over minority views, but to get outside input. Pressing these points is neither "disingenuous" nor "prevarication." PPX (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We are saying that someone said something. Not that what they said is right. The fact is that he said what we quoted him as saying. I'm sympathetic to your arguments because you're being very calm and reasonable.--Monochrome _ Monitor  21:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

here is another secondary source noting the Amos Harel quote:. It time to move past this wikilawyerign objection. Epson Salts (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And that's another op-ed by an organization whose agenda includes debunking voices critical to Israel. JPost is a better source than the previous ones, but it doesn't move the needle much on the notability question. We still have no hard news sources and no academic works. Not everything that a pundit says is notable.
 * Does anybody have an objection to getting an outside perspective? PPX (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Op-Eds are perfectly fine for establishing notability. We are not using the OpEd for cats, we are using it to show that comment by Harel was covered by other sources, fully attributed, - as is done on countless articles, without this kind of wikilawyering. As was pointed out to you, we can use primary sources, which this one is not, and even using the made up standard of "show  me a 3rd party that commented on this" - there have already been 2 such sources shown, You and Malik are wikilawyering to keep opinions s you don't like out of the article, and it needs to stop. Epson Salts (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't started "wikilawyering." I'm acting in good faith. I want to get this right. And I resent Epson Salts comments. Why are you so hostile to an outside perspective? (And don't pretend that there aren't other issues, here's one -- what part of his background makes Harel an expert in what is and isn't a human rights group? See WP:NEWSORG -- "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.") Right now I'm taking the time to read through the relevant policies and come to a conclusion; I'd frankly welcome an uninvolved outsider to walk me through that here.


 * Setting aside the policy questions (which are real despite the bullying going on here) I'm concerned that Harel's perspective that they should not be seen as a human right organization is being twisted in a weasel-word like way (given that it's listed under "criticism" and uses words like "accused") as a criticism on the credibility of the organization, when, in fact, he takes pain in the article to endorse their credibility ("The nay-sayers should simmer down. The men behind the testimonies are soldiers, that is certain. Three of them met with Haaretz, at the paper's request. While there is no definite way of vouching for the credibility of their reports, it is safe to say that they did fight in Gaza and that they provided enough authentic detail to prove that they are not impostors.") and BtS themselves (I think, this should be checked) don't even claim to be a human rights group.


 * And going back to my point above about Harel's expertise: As a journalist with a long history of covering the Israeli military, he would have more chops to opine on their credibility than about their status as a human rights group or not.


 * Maybe, if-and-when the policy issues are resolved, we need to find the way to more honestly represent Harel's comments rather than cherry-picking from them to push a point he's not making. What he's actually saying is essentially the same as what we have Goldberg saying in the lead: that BTS is a "left-wing soldiers' protest organization."


 * My proposal is that we take the time to first work through the issues on the appropriateness of this source, and (assuming that it's appropriate) that we then find the way to incorporate it without POV-pushing. PPX (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are misusing wikipedia policy in an attempt to remove an opinion you don't like. That is wikilawyering. I'll repeat the arguments made against your edit: (1) You apparently made it while under the impression that it is an OEd being used for factual claims. It isn't an OpEd. (2) You claimed it can't be used because it is a primary source- but it isn't, it is news reporting by Harel about a 3rd party - BtS. (2) Even if it was a primary source, it was shown that there's no policy against using primary sources for undisputed facts- it is wholly undisputed that Harel said this, and the quote is attributed to him. (3) finally, you raised the objection that for this news article to be used, it must be covered by additional 3rd party sources. While this is not policy, you were shown at least 2 other 3rd party sources that covered Harel's quote. If after all this, and the clear consensus against your edit you still won;t budge- you are wikileawyering.
 * You say you simply want to get this right- fine. Could you perhaps explain to me why Harel writing about BtS and voicing his opinion about the organization is a primary source which should be removed, absent secondary coverage, but Uri Blau (writing in the same paper)  about NGO Monitor and voicing his opinion about the organization is fine to use, as is? Epson Salts (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I give up, there is no good faith here. Breaking the Silence is apparently our lord and savior. Thou shalt not critisize it. In other words, I suggest an RfC. Since I am marely an observer, someone else should do it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to Epson Salts:
 * °First, please be civil. Do not accuse me again of Wikilawyering. I do not take kindly to repeated Personal Attacks.
 * °Second, Harel is voicing his opinion. It is not a news article; there is no news whatsoever in the article. It is a primary source, not a secondary source. (I know you insist otherwise... that doesn't make it so).
 * °Third, I am still uncertain about the policy situation here. Wikipedia certainly does not allow every opinion that is printed to be included in our articles. That amounts to Original Research. At the same time, the practice of quoting from opinion articles is commonplace, and while I don't want to devolve into WP:POINT, I do genuinely want to understand what the lines are.
 * °Fourth, the secondary sources that were produced are, as I wrote earlier, "lackluster" and may not satisfy the definition of RS.
 * °Fifth, I don't see a clear consensus here. While the conversation has moved some, we essentially have three editors against this content, and three editors against. And then *nobody has responded* to my discovery that Harel is not criticizing the organization.
 * °Sixth, you raise the comparison of Uri Blau's reporting on NGO Monitor. I just glanced at the article to understand. My response is three fold: (a) As I wrote above, quoting op-eds is common even though it may violate policy; (b) That is not the case here: unlike Harel's piece Blau's article is a news article that *reports* things, and it is one of those things that he reported (and not Blau's analysis) that is included in the WP article; And (c) while I indulged you here, we should focus our discussion here on this article and not other articles (which surely could be improved as well).
 * I am going ahead and posting a RFC on the policy question. If the decision is that we can quote from Harel's opinion article, then we can work on getting the wording to accurately portray his comments. PPX (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In light of the predominant view that using the primary source is valid, here is a proposal for how to use the text, cognizent of the policy directive to avoid any interpretation of this primary text:

1) Journalist Amos Harel wrote that a Breaking the Silence report drew a "knee-jerk" reaction from the organization's critics, and that "the nay-sayers should simmer down" because "while there is no definite way of vouching for the credibility of their reports, it is safe to say that [the testifyers] did fight in Gaza and that they provided enough authentic detail to prove that they are not imposters. "

2) I would add the following line as well if a case can be convincingly made that Harel is a specialized or recognized expert (as per WP:NEWSORG) on the question of identifying what constitutes a human rights organization: Harel also said that "Breaking the Silence... has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classified as a 'human rights organization'... this does not mean that the documented evidence, some of which was videotaped, is fabricated."

3) If we cannot make the case for expertise then in order to be clear that this is his opinion, that line should be tweaked to: Harel also gave his opinion that "Breaking the Silence... has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classified as a 'human rights organization'... this does not mean that the documented evidence, some of which was videotaped, is fabricated."

4) To avoid coloring this primary source with the interpretation that Harel is engaging in criticism, this text should be included in the "Controversy over 2009 military discussion of Gaza conflict" section.PPX (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Can a quote from an opinion article be included in the article?
Should the Amos Harel opinion be included in this article? Is it significantly notable? Does it amount to OR?PPX (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Query. Please add more context to this RFP. Reading through the discussions on this page leaves me even more confused. Andrew327 12:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article earlier included a quote from an opinion piece by Amos Harel. We have been having a discussion about whether including this opinion in an article is valid in Wikipedia. Concerns were raised about it being a primary source, about whether the secondary sources presented are of sufficent quality, and about whether including the quote amounts to original research.
 * There is also a discussion about whether the quote accurately portrayed his comments and whether it was presented in a NPOV manner. I believe it is best to defer the discussion about how he's quoted until after we determine whether he can be quoted.PPX (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, it's appropriate. The removal of Amos' quote is unjustified, it's not OR, Ha'aretz is plainly RS, the opinion is notable precisely because it's controversial and fully merits inclusion in the article, as an important perspective on the group. Cpsoper (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Harel is a notable commentator and no-one seriously disputes the fact that opinions can be presented as long as there is in-text attribution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Unless the opinion is reported by secondary sources, it doesn't need to go in the article. (For the sake of clarity, I don't mean "cited by ideological allies in other editorial comments", I mean "reported as news by secondary sources".) Including every asshole's opinion is the reason every article about Israel and Palestine includes every bit of criticism, no matter how silly, and every bit of praise, no matter how trite. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against including attributed opinions in articles and Harel's opinion is permitted per se. The problem at the moment is that the two "criticism" sections together are almost 4 times as long as the "support" section (by word count), which is an obvious NPOV violation.  There has to be some severe trimming.  Rather that trying to argue extra criticism into the article, you should be deciding who to remove. Zerotalk 01:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Amos Harel is a recognized journalist. Haaretz is a notable source. The opinion should go into the article, notwithstanding one editor's inane second source theory.  Kamel Tebaast  04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether or not Harel's quote should be admitted into the article. I don't believe there should be any consideration placed as to the current size of the Criticism section, and that discussion should be a new section, if desired.  Kamel Tebaast  18:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree with all the above. Amos Harel's words has to be in the article and if you want to limit the critisism section, Amos Harel should stay and others should go.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the opinion is notable and should go into the article. I would like it to be grouped with other similar opinions however, and hope someone finds the time to look for them; I've heard such an opinion about this organization from different sources, but not really into it right now to do a comprehensive search. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Any more comments? Thank you to everybody who has commented. If there are no more comments in the coming days, I will withdraw the RfC. I would welcome more comments, especially from uninvolved editors. In the meantime, assuming that this is where the RfC concludes, please take a look at the discussion above the RfC where I have offered a proposal for how to include this source in a manner that does not interpret the primary source.PPX (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with your proposal. But there's only one thing missing: Don't you think something small about Ron Ben-Yishai's opinion should be added in the criticism section, even one line? Such as "Breaking the Silence leaves foreign audiences with the impression that the alleged, errant act of one solider, proven or not, is indicative of the ethos and the norms of the IDF entire." The same way you included the opinions of Ami Ayalon, Alik Ron, Amiram Levin and Yuval Diskin for those who support the organization.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawal: I am withdrawing the RfC with the understanding that the prevalent view that including a perspective by Amos Harel, even without a secondary source, is appropriate. It does not amount to OR. It does need to be considered as a primary source. I will open a new thread to discuss the question by Angelsi regarding Ron Ben Yishai. Please see the thread above the RfC for discussion on how to incorporate Harel's view. PPX (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Angelsi query
In the RfC above, Angelsi 1989 brought up the question of what we should do with respect to the Ben Yishai opinion. I'm opening up this thread to discuss that. Here's Angelsi: PPX (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with your proposal. But there's only one thing missing: Don't you think something small about Ron Ben-Yishai's opinion should be added in the criticism section, even one line? Such as "Breaking the Silence leaves foreign audiences with the impression that the alleged, errant act of one solider, proven or not, is indicative of the ethos and the norms of the IDF entire." The same way you included the opinions of Ami Ayalon, Alik Ron, Amiram Levin and Yuval Diskin for those who support the organization.


 * Here was what I wrote in the section above about including the Ben Yishai quote: "Here we have a newspaper-affiliated blog picking up in it's entirety a statement by an organization created to attack Breaking the Silence in which they quote Ron Ben Yishai. This one takes a little bit of common sense with respect to the guidelines. Among other issues, the author (Benjamin Anthony) does not pass muster on the matter of the professionalism requirement. see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USERG."


 * That's a question that boils down to sourcing. In addition, (as I've learned) while primary sources are not always excluded, I'm certain that there is no imperative to including it. So, is there a better source? And, if so, why do we think this is notable enough to include it? PPX (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not? Ron Ben-Yishai is a recognized military expert, covering the battlefield for many years. Benjamin Anthony is not relevant, since he is only publishing what Ben-Yishai said in public as member of "Our Soldiers Speak". If the problem is the source, editors already told you that WP:Primary sources are not required to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective", as long as they are attributed. "Our Soldiers Speak" is against "Breaking the Silence"... so what? That's called criticism, which is necessary per NPOV to balance the support you added from other Israelis.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I still believe that the better move would have been to exclude Harel even though the consensus view was to include him on a technicality. While Primary sources are sometimes allowed, they are frowned upon. We should be basing our work on secondary sources. And even then there is a hierarchy where peer-reviewed academic works are better than news articles in major media outlets, are better than news articles in hardly known media outlets.


 * We have the discretion to determine whether this is an appropriate use of the primary source, including whether it is notable enough to include.


 * Here's the relevant policy language from WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources... Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."


 * Look. This is a balancing act. There are many, many, many, many opinions about BtS. If we were to include them all, we'd run foul of WP:NOTADIARY. As it is, I'm of the view that we have too many of these opinions which gets repetitive, boring, and unencyclopedic. And that was part of why I sought to remove the Harel opinion.


 * Angelsi is already asking why it is that I apply this logic to Harel and Ben Yishai but not to the Generals in the support section. The difference there is that Harel and Ben Yishai are pundits and the Generals are well, generals. There is a difference in the notability of the views. And that's why we have top-notch secondary sources that report -- as news -- what it is that the generals said. The existence of these types of sources helps us to determine what's notable so that we don't just go based on our own guts or POVs.


 * With this in mind, my questions to Angelsi and others who want to include Ben Yishai's perspective are: (1) Is Ben Yishai's comment really notable enough to be included in the article? (2) Why? (3) If it is notable enough, why are we having such a hard time finding quality sources?


 * Once we have that squared away, we need to get back to how to use this primary source properly. What's really going on here is that Benjamin Anthony is quoting Ron Ben Yishai in a blog. Ben Yishai is already just a pundit. But now we need to also be careful about misusing the primary source because this primary source is that Anthony says that Ben Yishai said [whatever he said]. What makes Anthony an expert on Ben Yishai? I don't think he is. And I don't even want to think about how to properly do the inline attribution. Then comes in the question of whether we trust Times of Israel to have fact checked it. Bear in mind that they say that they don't edit approved bloggers.


 * Ok... I'm done for now... I know that's a lot... In short, what I'm saying is that there are issues here :) PPX (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006190556/http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=44104 to http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=44104
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203110014/http://meretzusa.org/efforts-remove-upz-israel-campus-coalition-fail to http://www.meretzusa.org/efforts-remove-upz-israel-campus-coalition-fail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202231757/http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=1318 to http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=1318
 * Added tag to http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3556322,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819133516/http://www.shovrimshtika.org:80/oferet/news_item_e.asp?id=1 to http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/news_item_e.asp?id=1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.shovrimshtika.org/UserFiles/File/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160713171212/http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1198554 to http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1198554
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160713175306/http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1198551 to http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1198551

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091110072338/http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Middle_East/ML_Israel_Palestinians.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Middle_East/ML_Israel_Palestinians.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/news_item_e.asp?id=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807084706/http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08042009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08042009.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719090559/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Reaction_to_Breaking_Silence_report_15_Jul_2009.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Reaction_to_Breaking_Silence_report_15_Jul_2009.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing to update article and improve tone
This article relies heavily on news reporting and the usual kinds of quotes: he said, she said, he said, etc. But it is not supposed to be a news article, and providing quotes about how military and political figures greeted each report BtS published does not get us very far. Is there any evidence that BtS has affected Israeli perceptions or actions? Other nations? Has their membership increased or decreased/ and funding? The 2004 exhibit is written about in the main section of the article three times, as I recall, which is two times too many. There seems to be a lot of repetition of other material as well, so I tried to clean it up and summarize some sections, rather than have quotes by various figures - these don't matter so much from the perspective of 2017. Still working on it.Parkwells (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Parkwells. I tried to pick up where you left off. There was a paragraph toward the bottom of the article added today about HaMakor that was about a program described higher up in the article. There was a silly statement that not all BtS members are refuseniks. A statement about "Police Commander XXX YYY, Commander of the police district." And so on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your help, Malik Shabazz. Still trying to sort through this lengthy, rather circuitous article. I think the basic problem is that it was written in pieces, based on journalistic reporting (with many of the articles now disappeared, it seems). But now the NGO has been operating for more than 10 years, and it's time to put it into perspective and context, summarize material, and not have quotes for and against each publication or event. Also, it's circular and repetitious. Am preparing myself for another effort. So many of the quotes essentially complain and respond about the same things that I do not think they are all worth including. I'm planning on just listing the titles of pubs, rather than saying each time - "Breaking the Silence published xx booklet in xxxx". Also am trying to reduce the number of cites drawn from the BtS website; we need secondary sources, not their own interpretation of what they are doing. Parkwells (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed few glaring POV violations there is more probably--Shrike (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried to add to the Lead to indicate that the NGO has a history and has dealt with soldiers giving testimony about more events than just at the beginning of the 2000s. Tried to supply facts. That's also why I added the outcome of the court challenges up to 2016 - rulings that have protected confidentiality of witnesses.Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by government
Perhaps a different, more neutral title should be found for this section, or consider grouping some material together. In this section, I hid the following two cites:, because they are sources for the 2004 photography exhibit in Tel Aviv and reactions, not the subject of this section, which was a June 2017 police investigation of a veteran's claims of abusing a Palestinian, and aftermath. The cites should be moved to be used as sources for the appropriate 2004 event or deleted altogether. Also this section has too much detail, material could be paraphrased rather than having lengthy quotes for this continuing battle. I suggest that the quote by BtS should be deleted. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a newspaper, filled with quotes from one side and another to carry out their arguments. Parkwells (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You added the two sources, perhaps accidentally copying and pasting them from elsewhere in the article, before you hid them.
 * As far as the title, maybe you can come up with a more neutral description for the top "justice" official in the country alleging that a citizen has committed war crimes, when the only war crime is the 50-year occupation of the Palestinian Territories. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow MShabazz, I see we aren't even pretending to be NPOV anymore ay? I agree with Parkwells that this section should [1] have a NPOV title and not one clearly siding with BtS as Mshabazz insists; [2] should be a more general category questioning the reliability of their testimonies. Nowhere in the article is there a section dedicated to this, when this is perhaps the largest criticism of the organization. This is different from the anonymity of their testimonies as that is another issue. PasterofMuppets (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The usual bullshit from a troll who doesn't try to hide that he's a shill from a fascist organization. What isn't NPOV from recognizing that a military occupation is a human rights violation and resttling the occupied area a war crime? Oh, I know—we can accuse human rights groups of being anti-Israeli and antisemitic because they're not willing to "bend" the truth to sooth the consciences of the occupiers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MShabazz, for catching my inadvertent "add" error; I'll delete those cites. Yes, I had copied them previously to move them to the appropriate content about the 2004 exhibit. In terms of the government actions, let me think about this. There has been increasing pressure in the last couple of years; I just think we should not be itemizing events but try to write about them more comprehensively - e.g., from Netanyahu's criticism in the Knesset, cancellation of mtg with German foreign minister, to prohibiting BtS participation in IDF activities. Maybe these could all go under "Reactions by government"? PasterofMuppets, there is a section on criticism; I don't think we need a "section" devoted simply to questioning the reliability of testimonies, as that is already discussed in numerous places. It seems, instead, we need a way to address it overall as an issue - one in which it seems there has been plenty said on both sides.Parkwells (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm getting more into this and am trying to catch up- does anyone know how the court ruled on the gov't's 2016 petition seeking the identity of a person whose testimony was published?Parkwells (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See here. They reached an agreement and the court case was withdrawn. BTS will hand over information to the prosecutors but it will not include information that identifies who gave the testimony. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to an English version of that article?Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Section: Israeli government criticism
I moved a paragraph that was in the "Funding" section to here, as it involved gov't criticism in 2009 following the Operation Cast Lead report, and efforts to persuade other governments not to support this organization. I relabeled "Funding" as "Funding sources and issues". There was already content in two paragraphs in this section about Israeli diplomatic overtures to the Netherlands to try to persuade them not to fund. I deleted one sentence to have better transition, but think the content on this topic needs to be summarized even more now: not only did it happen eight years ago, perhaps suggesting that fewer quotes are needed, but there is repetitive material. Did not want to edit any more in that section without people being able to see it.Parkwells (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Section: Reaction of government and military
This section comes early in the article, following the 2004 activities of BtS and even before the longer discussion about what BtS has done as an organization. While I added some more recent content to this section, such as the government's 2015 guidelines against having BtS representatives and similar organizations speak to students in state schools, and the proposed bill in 2016 to ban organizations from schools that were "deemed" harmful to the IDF, I think editors should reconsider how this material is handled. It seems close to the topic: "Israeli government criticism", and perhaps we should try to combine the two. But, the content must be clearly identified as to when reactions were expressed and particular criticisms were being made. The government is not monolithic, ordinarily, and criticism may come from particular representatives of certain political parties. It appears that over the years, the government has heightened its reactions and punitive responses to BtS and other similar groups.Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think my growing preference would be First, complete the sections that describe BtS activities in full. Then have "Government criticism", and have that section include a brief discussion of the criticism about anonymity of testimonies and those issues (which seem to have been repeated rather consistently after every report/book that BtS puts out). (This could be followed by Criticism from other groups, which seems to be essentially the same.) Then, secondly for the government's response, have a separate section on "Government and military reactions" (although I question this title, as the military answers to the government and should really be a sub-header within "Government reactions"). Have that section cover, for instance, the content about efforts in 2009 to dissuade foreign funding, later prohibitions by the military and other parts of the government (i.e., Education Ministry) to ban BtS speakers from IDF events and from state schools. How does that sound? Then all will be covered, there should be less repetition and circularity between sections, and there will be some way to account for "Reactions" or actions by the government over time. These have gone from court challenges of confidentiality to seeking to bar representatives of this group from speaking to soldiers and students.Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconsider section on 2009 testimony from military school
The section titled "Controversy over 2009 military discussion of Gaza conflict" starts with reports from a training program, then goes into the BtS 2009 report, also on Gaza. Eight years later, I think this has to be handled differently and maybe with a different title. There should be a briefer framing of how the material from the first few veterans was published and emphasis on its effect on Israeli society, before the BtS report was published. Maybe the frame should be how criticism of Israeli military activities began to arise, and how BtS fits into this, as there are other groups that have reported on the occupation and oppose it. This article is supposed to be about BtS, but it's not the only actor.Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Give complete cites
As long as people are working on this article, please give complete citations; don't leave bare urls. Provide title of article, author, work or newspaper, date of publication. Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Some notes

 * this edit  was necessary because the opening line was an unsourced generalization containing a half truth. It is true that the IDF's function is to protect Israeli citizens. It is also true that one of its key functions is to control the Occupied Territories, and administer them, activities that have nothing to do with the protection of Israeli citizens per se.  Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Founded to collect testimony since 2000 from troops who served in the Occupied Territories, the NGO has continued to operate." This is inept stylistically, and also leaves a question panhandling in the reader's mind. The organisation was founded, we are told in 2004, but here it is said to 'collect testimony since 2000'. Someone must have intended saying that some of the testimony collected by BTS since 2004 relates to events occurring as early as 2000. Whatever we should write from sources, a practice which enables one to avoid such messes as this sentence Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perplexed566. Apropos this edit summary and the accompanying removalismNahal (or its 50th battalion) is not made up only of kids from kibbutzim and moshavim. Plenty of city kids too, that is an egregiously nescient WP:OR violation. So either revert or refresh yourself about the limits imposed on editors by core wiki policies, and, once you've mastered the basic principles, apply them, i.e. don't remove sourced academic information because you think it wrong.
 * Just so you can see what you did in removing information you personally disagree with though the source is authoritative, this is the text you meddled with:

"Among the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) units serving during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, there was one in particular, battalion 50 of the Nahal, which was made up of youths from moshavim and kibbutzim who often knew each other before their service. Erella Grassiani has said that their background was one in which there was more open talk about a two-state solution and perhaps more sympathy for the civilians they encountered"
 * the source this was crafted from reads:

"The founding members of Breaking the Silence served in battalian 50 of the Nahal, which consists of moshav and kibbutz members (small agriculural settlements) that have usually known each other from before their conscription through membership in leftist youth movements. This battalion is seen by Israeli society in general and by itself in particular as less inclined to aggression against the civilian population it faces; its soldiers come from a political environment that is open to the idea of a two-state solution and peace talks with the Palestinian authorities.p.249" If you are uncomfortable with a source, which is talking about the sociology of a specific organization ca.2000-2004, then you are supposed to do some work, and cast about for other sources that might clarify your ‘perplexity’. Maimonides is no help here. if you had taken the trouble to consult Erella Grassiani's major monograph, you would have quickly found, that she wrote "The Nahal Brigade is a brigade within which soldiers can combine agricultural or social work with their military service. Many of its members (especially from Brigade 50) are from Kibbutzim or Moshavim. Erella Grassiani, Morality and Normalcy in A-Symmetrical Conflict: Distancing, Denial and Moral Numbing among Israeli Conscripts in Everyday Practices of Occupation, Vrije Universitet 2009 p.69 n.38." That ‘many’ would have enabled you to tweak the fucking text instead of throwing it out lazily just on the basis of some private belief. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a historically true statement - that has little bearing on the modern IDF for the past 20 years or so - but that is lazily repeated by writers - particularly non-Israeli ones - who are not familiar with the current makeup and role. The population of moshavim and even more so kibbutzim (many of which have become essentially geriatric institutions) has dwindled greatly in relation to the overall Jewish population, and Nahal has become more or less a regular infantry brigade.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have completely undone your own assertions. You admit Grassiani is correct for that period she is being used for, concerning that battalion down to 2004, and then introduce a total irrelevgancy about changes since. Well, who gives a flying fuck? We are discussing 2000-2004 nothing beyond that. That's pretty obvious, ain't it?Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC).
 * What is true about battalion-50 is that it is composed to a large extent from youth movement members who volunteer for additional community service. In the past - this service type founded/lived in Nahal settlements or other agricultural work - but that is long gone (the last one finally closed in 2001, and it was moribund for a decade or two prior to 2001). The vast majority of current volunteer work is educational/youth-leadership in nature and is in various urban or semi-urban settings. . What you do have - is foreign writers repeating information which isn't true for a few decades (but is retained in the battlion's nickname).Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to contribute, (a) focus on sources and forget your personal beliefs. (2) try to understand what is being discussed. Grassiani is writing of 2000-2004, so kibitizing that this information 'isn't true for decades' (meaning 'hasn't been true for decades') is totally unfocused. By the obtuse remark about 'foreign writers repeating information which isn't true for a few decades,' I guess you mean Erella Grassiani. She was born in Nahariya, has Israeli nationality, is fluent in Hebrew and studied under Eyal Ben-Ari. I.e. she is a reliable source, which neither you, I nor the other chap are.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted a source (mako, Israel channel2). Grassiani is not a reliable source on IDF makeup. You are trying to push here a piece of information that is simply patently wrong - from at least the mid 90s or so. A long time ago it used to be correct, and the battlion's nickname still reflects it (בני משקים).Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you believe an Israeli-Netherlands scholar with an academic monograph on an aspect of soldiering in the IDF is not a reliable source on the specific issue raised on this page, but some dumb TV channel's blather, unrelated to this is, then you should read the core policy statements of Wikipedia or move to some other area of the encyclopedia, where good sourcing is not mandatory.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate the tone of this discussion and the profanity in it. I hope we can change that. That said, it's appropriate for Nishidani to use the talk page to discuss this edit further and to dig into the sources. Substantively, it may be worth taking a look at WP:SCHOLARSHIP and what it says about the need to use dissertations with great care and the lack of peer review in the process. With that in mind, and looking at the Mako source, I do not think that we can substantiate even the statement that "many" of the soldiers are from Kibbutzim and Moshavim. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We can substantiate that. I provided the sources, and the paraphrase sticks to those. It is not that they are from kibbutzim and moshavim, but, in the period under study by that scholar, many were.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the early 90s they were. In 2004 there were small remanants of this program (part of the noncoms were recruits from this pool - one batch out of a few). What we do have is an ex Israeli anti Israel activist, who is not a RS and is definitely highly biased, writing something that appears authorative but is woefully out of date. In any event - I am done arguing or attempting to source this point - it is a mistake, but on a trivial detail.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are I suggest becoming increasingly erratic. First you claimed she was a 'furrener'. Then when I pointed out she was an Israeli, you came back with:
 * "What we do have is an ex Israeli anti Israel activist, who is not a RS and is definitely highly biased, writing something that appears authorative but is woefully out of date"
 * Where did you get that 'ex-Israeli' from? Or that she is an 'activist'? Or that with her scholarly background she is not RS except, reading between the lines, in so far as that acronym might be read as 'rat shit'? We have only your word for it that her history is 'out of date'.
 * Fa Chrissake brush up on wiki policy. A study written by a competent scholar under peer-review academic supervision is by definition WP:RS. What the above constitutes is a personal rant against a scholar, not a corepolicy based argument, and can be ignored.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * She is not much of a scholar (assistant professor, some minor published work, as well as polemic non scholarly books). She is an activist, as you may see for instance here: gate48 treasurer, support for boycott. She does not reside in Israel. Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeezus. Sinced when 'not residing in Israel' affect our evaluation of RS?Everybody with a public position in this area is arguably an activist. Look up the word. It does not signify a 'leftist'/'militant'/'blinkered' partisan. In the old liberal order, concern for injustices was normative, and thought part of a citizen's duty towards his state, or the state of the world. Every Israeli/Jewish source from the Anti-Defamation League, to the MFA, and innumerable think tank professionals writing on the I/P area are, by this definition, 'activists'. Editors here, idem, must be 'activists' because they have an identifiable POV, and act on it in editing articles. So? The word is coded jargon for 'taking a position that makes the government of the day feel uncomfortable'. All Zionists are, by commitment, 'activists', since they work for a cause, and one should no more hammer that fact as a reason for dismissing the content of some essay, book or article (Simon Schama, Simon Sebag-Montefiore, and Howard Jacobson wrote a letter to The Times which, by the same criterion you use lamely here, makes them activists. Crap.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In a word, it is a damnable tactic of modern times not to look at the merits of an argument (content) but to ferret out something ostensibly 'negative' in the 'background' of one's interlocutor, and, if you can muck up a semblance of innuendo, dismiss the argument. I am reminded of an anecdote by a friend of mine, who has a scholarly chair, who told me that his brilliant colleague, nominally 'Jewish', made a minor remark in public about Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and within a few days his faculty, family and whoever pestered him to retract, for the good of 'our' state over there. This in the 1980s, when things were quiet.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * She is much more notable for her activism than her academic creds (which you keep on bringing up). Look at her scant body of work and how seldomly she is cited: scholar profile - and she is in her 40s. She has been based in the Netherlands since 96 at least (MA studies and all subsequent positions) per her linkedin .Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now it's not only that this terrible woman doesn't stay in Israel, but she even has notched up 40 years. You're doing exactly what is done in this area, 'profiling' someone whose work you dislike to find pretexts for erasing the results of their research onb ad hominem grounds. It's a standard technique in Zionist hasbara, don't imitate it here.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I only brought up the ex-Israeli angle since you brought it up above I guess you mean Erella Grassiani. She was born in Nahariya, has Israeli nationality, is fluent in Hebrew and studied under Eyal Ben-Ari. I.e. she is a reliable source, which neither you, I nor the other chap are. - you brought this up, not me - and she's been based in the Netherlands for more than 20 years (based on her public CV) - and possibly since she was a young kid... Eyal Ben-Ari was a remote co-supervisor - along with Netherlands based supervisors Desiree Verweij and Jan Abbink.... As for the rest - well - this is part of how we evaluate sources. A little known activist, with a minor academic position, few publications, and relatively few citations - is not a preeminent expert in the field and her public stance on the issue at question definitely makes her a biased source.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No this is not how we evaluate sources. All of this stupid profiling has nothing to do with the RS status of the source. You may not be familiar with academic, but no one gives a fuck for geolocating professors who help a scholar's research. Wikipedia I/P articles are crammed with shit journo sources by people who would never pass the criteria you are inventing. If you don't have a handle on WP:RS, then go to the RSN board and notify us here of the discussion you raise there. That's what I do, rather than browbeat editors with what are highly personal, selective subjective dislike profiling arguments. Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nishidani -- Can you re-post the sources (other than the dissertation) for this claim? You mentioned above that you provided them, but I missed them somehow. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read further up the page.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. The information is wrong. But it is in a peer reviewed academic book. As far as RS goes, I can't argue.
 * I think at this point we would be wise to use our editorial judgement to not cover this detail which is tangential to the topic of the article. After all, the article is about Breaking the Silence. And this is a detail about the composition of a specific unit within the IDF out of which most of the founders of the organization served more than a decade ago. That's quite a few degrees of separation.
 * If we were to include it, it must not be given undue weight. We would need to bring in the sources that report on this correctly as well, such as the Mako source above. I think that would be quite a mouthful for this detail. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue that a book by an activist who is also anthropology PhD (the book is essentially a reworked copy of her PhD dissertation) with little ties to the Israeli security apparatus while possibly a highly-biased RS on the feelings and motivations of BtS's founders - is not a RS for the makeup of Israeli military units - and in any case this trifle detail (which is wrong!) has little significance in the context of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No one has shown the information is wrong for the specific period mentioned. Perplexed accepts it is RS, and thinks it tangential. Well, all details are arguably tangential. A sociological observation about rtrhe kibbutzim/moshavim background of many in a unit, several of whom joined BtS is eminently focused on the article's topic. All of Icewhiz's complaints are personal, without policy grounds. If you wish to push your distaste for this source, Icewhiz, then go to the RSN board for wider input, and notify this page. That is how things are done here, not by reverting.Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Beware of the assumption that the founders of BtS were from moshavim or kibbutzim. At least two of the six listed (Shaul and Kurz) in the article are from Jerusalem. They also grew up in nationalist/religious backgrounds that are very different sociologically from what Grassiani is talking about when she talks about moshavim/kibbutzim. (I couldn't find anything about the others' backgrounds). &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You do well to, as here, pursue the topic, but she is making a generalization about the sociological context informing the Battalion from which members of BtS emerged, and not stating anything, as far as I recall, that contradicts your remark. If one can get reliably sourced information to throw light on Grassiani's points, all the better. I see a lot of stuff on these articles that I would chuck out as misleading or inexact or just reflecting some moronic meme, based on personal knowledge and assessments, but I never do that. The rule is simple. One follows what RS are available, until better material turns up. It's unfortunate, in one sense, but necessary to avoid anonymous freelance composition, WP:OR.etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule is actually not that simple. See WP:VNOTSUFF. There is a question as to whether this improves the article. That's what I was getting to with my comments about the tangentiality of the demographics of this particular unit. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has yet to be shown that an historical observation focused on the sociological basis for the formation of Breaking the Silence is not material to the article. By all normal standards, it is relevant. Icewhiz stated:
 * "This is a historically true statement - that has little bearing on the modern IDF for the past 20 years or so - but that is lazily repeated by writers - particularly non-Israeli ones - who are not familiar with the current makeup and role."
 * That objection drops because it confuses the specifics of 2001-2004, with the contemporary makeup of Battalion 50. It was flawed because it was written under the misapprehension that the scholar we are using was a foreigner out of touch with contemporary(ca.2017)realities. I could go through every objection above, and show that none has addressed the issue why a reference in a scholarly source, which is admitted to be historically correct in speaking about a specific period in the past regarding a specific group within a specific battalion, a group whose profile is the subject of this article, isn't to be included. You can cite WP:VNOTSUFF, I could cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus is not yea or nay saying and then toting up the votes: it is based on the cogency of arguments. And there is no cogency in the objections so far.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear - I was referring to 2001-4, and the makeup of battalion-50 hasn't been kibbutzim and moshavim since the mid 90s. As for the Grassiani - she is Netherlands based since the 90s at least (her undergraduate studies) - and possibly earlier. She does have Israeli family - but no, she is not an expert on the IDF by any stretch nor is she acquainted with the local I/P environment beyond her visits.Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself. You said the data from 2001-2004, moshavim-kibbutzim elements of Battalion 50 (which is what we are citing Grassiani for) is historically correct. You then you state the opposite:'the makeup of battalion-50 hasn't been kibbutzim and moshavim since the mid 90s.' You state in the one sentence that Grassiani's data is correct and false simultaneously. You can't expect editors to take this kind of argument seriously. If you want to undo Grassiani on Breaking the Silence cadres in Battalion 50 ca 2001-2004, then provide a source that states this for that unit at that period. Neither you nor I are reliable sources. So stick to sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay about policy, whereas WP:VNOTSUFF is a statement of what the policy is. The later specifies that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I've been making the argument -- and I like to think that it's cogent :) -- that the make up of this unit is not relevant to this article. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'makeup of the unit' is not the point of the edit. The sociological factors arguably accounting for the emergence in that unit of a certain quite unique diffidence at one point in time, when BtSD was formed is deemed important by the one source we have so far. What you are saying amounts to this. We have one strong source giving arguments about the background that might account for the peculiar position a group of soldiers in a battalion, who formed the core of BtS, adopted. You don't think it's relevant. I.e. you are stating that some valid information about the origin of the BtS should not be in the article. Why? You keep repeating your position, but you have never given an adequate explanation of why an article short on background should be eviscerated of one source that actually provides such details. I've never encountered this before. The rule has been RS evidence weighs more strongly than the personal feelings of editors.


 * This is about RS. You both are trying to challenge a source, nota bene, not by going to the RSN board, but by insisting, -the arguments change - that a source on events 2001-2004 is not appropriate because the battalion since has changed. That is totally irrelevant. We are talking of a specific historical period, not the nature of the UNIT as an essence over time. It is unbelievably irrational for any one to assert an objection of this kind. It has been accepted that the source is correct for that period, and, in the same breath, that the source is not correct for the period 1995-2017. WP:Consensus will remind you that it is not the outcome of a numbers racket, but of the cogency of arguments, and you have none, as far as I can see. So cast the net wide, get external input.  I have dealt with every objection, shown the contradictions in the objections, or their irrelevance or subjectivity.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. My argument has changed. I am no longer arguing that the source is invalid. I'm now saying that it needs to be treated as a fringe opinion. But that's not my main argument.
 * I also agree that consensus is not a vote. If need be let's get a third opinion or a RFC.
 * But, no, this is not about RS. This is about WP:VNOTSUFF. My main argument is that including this information makes the article worse, not better. That's the standard: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted..."
 * To quickly elaborate on why I think this information fails to improve the article:
 * (1) BtS is far bigger than those who came out of this unit. Including this information risks generating the impression that the organization is somehow linked to these demographic groups.
 * (2) There is no evidence (RS or otherwise) that those who founded the group came from this background. To the contrary, we know that Yehuda Shaul (the early leader of the group) comes from an Orthodox, Jerusalemite background. (See here, for instance). Including the information under discussion risks creating the erroneous impression that Shaul and his colleagues come from that background.
 * (3) There is very little value, if any, to describing the demographic makeup of the unit to the topic of the article. At best it's trivia.
 * (4) If you accept my position that this source represents a fringe view (which I understand you might not), it will be very difficult to concisely cover this matter with proper weight.
 * Now, any one of these four are valid reasons not to include it. If you still believe it should be included, please respond to each of the four and make a positive case for including the information. And please keep in mind that under the policy, (a) the fact that it is deemed important by a source is not sufficient to meet the policy standard and (b) the onus to explain why it is worth including is on those who want to include it. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (1)'1) BtS is far bigger than those who came out of this unit.' So what? We are talking about documented origins, and this is a background sociological observation. Like Icewhiz, you keep on harping on what BtS is now, or became later. That is irrelevant to the specific point documented by Grassiani.
 * (2) 'There is no evidence (RS or otherwise) that those who founded the group came from this background.' Grassiani did fieldwork with those people, and wrote what she wrote, RS. Your challenge by citing Shaul's background is WP:OR. She did not mention Shaul in that context.
 * (3) ' At best it's trivia.' This is purely subjective. A sociology of a movement is always relevant to understanding why it may have taken the shape it did. If you are not interested in sociology, fine. If you think understanding a background is trivia, fine. But readers want insight, and the insights we provide are given by sources.
 * (4 to be treated as a fringe opinion/ this source represents a fringe view.' Sorry, but this is a specialized academic text analyzing the subject of this page, and it cannot be a 'fringe opinion', as opposed to a statement of a supposed fact, until you show the page that other equally reliable sources, in a majority, contradict what the source says. No source contradicting what Grassiani states for 2001-2004 has been brought to bear, and therefore asserting it is a fringe opinion is just your personal (fringe opinion). This is obvious.
 * So far you have one 'argument.' You and Icewhiz don't want this in, while admitting that the source is RS. Both of you originally tried to undermine the validity of the source, with arguments that you later dropped. Now you state it is fringe, which by definition it cannot be, since 'fringe' means there are majority views regarding precisely this issue which would contradict Grassiani's claim. You have produced no evidence, other than personal investigations or private knowledge of what Battalion 50 is now, which do not bear at all on the historical observation she makes. There is a dazzling onus on you to show why this successive of failed arguments should outweigh the simple fact that, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal likes and dislikes, and neither of you has produced any evidence from RS that would undermine Grassiani's statement or render it fringe. Editing Wikipedia is not so subjective that the flouting of elementary rules on sourcing by endless complaints can trump the evidential record we have to date.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Since both you and Icewhiz are misreading a fairly simple sentence or two, let me construe it. "Among the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) units serving during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, there was one in particular, battalion 50 of the Nahal, that in that period consisted of many youths from moshavim and kibbutzim,[7][8] who had often known each other before their service. Grassiani believed their background was one in which there was more open talk about a two-state solution and perhaps more sympathy for the civilians they encountered" From this you both keep harping about Shaul et al, not coming from moshavim and kibbutzim. Well, Grassiani nowhere states this. She is saying that sociologically many people in Battalion 50, which served in Hebron, and out of which experience BtS emerged, came from that kind of backtground. Evidentally, though she doesn't say so, she may be suggesting that people like Shaul et al., forming BtS, served with soldiers who came from a more liberal discursive background and climate, and that serving with such buddies may have been a factor in the way even people like Shaul came to interpret their experiences. A huge amount of virtual ink has been spilt is trying to link Shaul to moshavim and kibbutzim when the source makes no such assertion. Had she done so, obviously she would have been making a counterfactual statement, and would be fringe and therefore unusable. The problem is not the absolutely innocuous statement Grassiani is making, but the inability to read it properly, or rather overreading into it something that patently is not there. Your objections are therefore based on a radical misunderstanding of what the reliable source states.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response. I find your response to point 1 compelling. The others less so, but I'm still taking it in. Can you also make a case for how this information -- specifically, the composition of battalion 50 -- improves the article? (Some of that is implied above but I want to also make sure that I'm not missing a grander articulation of the value of this information). &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was caught in a 3 hour traffic jam after spending all day in hospitals. So give me some time to rest. If I don't answer by tomorrow, give me a nudge on my page. Provisorily, my suggestion is that the second part of that part can be reduced to a few words.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reorganized to put gov't criticism and actions together
Received no comments on proposed reorganization, so have proceeded as I outlined: First have all the material about the NGO, including publications. Then have general criticisms, and government criticisms and actions, including IDF responses, as it is part of gov't. Still needs some clean-up for balance, for instance reduction in content related to Israeli efforts in 2009 to influence funding by foreign gov'ts. Also need to treat 2009 material differently about controversy when reports came out from the military institute and then BtS about operations of that time. Last, have more recent statements of support, including by retired military and security officials. Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Parkwells. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Even though the gov't seems to be stepping up actions and rhetoric against this group, I think we should not be trying to report it on a daily basis, but take a breather. There are newspapers and websites for that. Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614082646/http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies_group_e.asp to http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies_group_e.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Makor Investigation
You wrote "In 2016 an investigative television program found that the vast majority of the group's testimonies were either false, exaggerated, or unverifiable." However that is not a fair summary of the source. The source is far more nuanced: "we have discovered in the testimonies - along with many important stories that have been verified - also exaggerations, mistakes in good faith and unfounded rumors". Your text is unacceptable. Zerotalk 11:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason that this should be in the lead rather than the critique section? It to my mind it is not an particularly substantial or important critique to be in the lead. SP00KY  talk  16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023
Wikilink "Knesset" in the lede. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deauthorized. (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Undo revert of dovidroth
@Dovidroth has reverted an addition to this page. I suggest to undo the revert since their change has reduced the precision of the page. DMH43 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Undo use Dovidroths revert
User Dovidroth reverted my additions, I suggest we undo their revert since they decreased the quality of the page. DMH43 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
 * this is dovidroths revert. @Dovidroth DMH43 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is now done DMH43 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The use of gunrel EI is not appropriate here
This is a topic where the source has a significant bias, and it is not a subject matter expert or aboutself. To the best of my knowledge, no consensus stating the opposite existed here. Therefore, removal is the only appropriate measure. FortunateSons (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)