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)

See Also

I put "Human rights in Israel" here but I want to link to the section in the human rights sections entitled "Human rights record in the Occupied Territories." Anyone know how to do that? Thanks.ShamWow (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ex servicemen organisations ......Breaking the silence is not about human rights per say...It's about the psychological problems occurring in ex-soldiers and how to alleviate guilt etc..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it does deal with human rights and the human rights abuses these individuals say they were part of. And it still is not a "refusenik" organization. From website: "We demand accountability regarding Israel's military actions in the Occupied territories perpetrated by us and in our name." It does not advocate that soldiers should not serve in the army.ShamWow (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BtS does not deal with human rights, It deals with ex-sevicemen's psychological problems....it is also used by human rights organisations, visiting dignitaries, etc etc. had BtS been about human rights the testimonies would not be anonymous...

It is an ex-seviceman's association...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's says nothing about what you talked about on the organization's website. From "About Us": "Breaking the Silence voices the experiences of those soldiers, in order to force Israeli society to address the reality which it created." Additionally, "We demand accountability regarding Israel's military actions in the Occupied territories perpetrated by us and in our name."

Yehuda Shaul and others in the organization also provide tours of Hebron. This seems to undermine the claim that it is simply an "ex-seviceman's association." And the fact that you describe it an "ex-seviceman's association" shows it would not really have any association with an organization like Yesh Gvul whose purpose is for soldiers not to serve in the first place.ShamWow (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashley, I am aware that it's about the Occupied territories, not Israel. That's why I would like to link to the section in the page on "Human rights in Israel" on the Occupied territories. Do you know how to make a link to a section within a page? Thanks.ShamWow (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Shaul and others in the organization also provide tours of Hebron....is about opening up to others ie breaking the silence..expiation of what Yehuda Shaul perceives as past sins...covered by it is also used by human rights organisations, visiting dignitaries, etc etc. above

Both organisations share some similarities, both are servicemen associations,... both are about about Israeli military behaviour in the occupied territories...both believe it is morally bankrupting the Israeli military....that is why it is not about the human rights issues...it is about morality of the Israeli military.......Yesh Gvul is not about refusing to serve it is about refusing to serve in the occupied territories and morals ....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense given that Yesh Gvul "arose in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon," not to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967. They may both believe that the occupation of these territories is morally bankrupting Israel (though I don't see that in any Breaking the Silence literature), but both organizations have completely different modus operandis. Connecting the two is not a natural association, but an unnecessary stretch that detracts from the clarity of the article.ShamWow (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Silence is an organization of veteran Israeli soldiers that collects testimonies of soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories during the Second Intifadah. Soldiers who serve in the Territories are witness to, and participate in military actions which change them immensely. Cases of abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but are still excused as military necessities, or explained as extreme and unique cases. Our testimonies portray a different and grim picture of questionable orders in many areas regardin[g] Palestinian civilians. These demonstrate the depth of corruption which is spreading in the Israeli military. While this reality which is known to Israeli soldiers and commanders exists in Israel's back yard, Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye, and to deny that which happens in its name. Discharged soldiers who return to civilian life discover the gap between the reality which they encountered in the Territories , and the silence which they encounter at home. In order to become a civilian again, soldiers are forced to ignore their past experiences. Breaking the Silence voices the experiences of those soldiers, in order to force Israeli society to address the reality which it created. Breaking the silence

• everything in that passage says it's about the effects on serving soldiers and Israeli society...not human rights...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yesh Gvul slogan: “We don’t shoot, we don’t cry, and we don’t serve in the occupied territories !”Yesh Gvul...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Breaking the Silence" is not a human rights organization in itself, but it deals with actual dilemmas of possible abuses of human rights and/or transgressions of the IDF Code of Conduct against militants and Palestinian civilians. A See also link is proper to direct readers to pertinent content on a related page that's not otherwise internally linked in the preceding text, and I support it here. Discussions of "feelings" aside, the soldiers are raising specific issues of IDF practices that they themselves have witnessed or even participated in, and also brings these to the attention of the public via their photo exhibition, website, discussions, etc. It is not a mere "encounter group" for participants only. And why "ex-servicemen"? If I understand correctly, the founders initially spoke out after their term of compulsory IDF service; have they not remained eligible for reserve duty? If so, they could correctly be described as veterans. ("Reservists" would be the term to describe those who served in the territories after discharge from compulsory service.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:54, 21 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 [1] 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. [2] 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 one external link on Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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

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

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

"Some" in the lead

I wanted to open up the conversation about 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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.'"[3], in addition to that, Harel stated that despite the organization’s agenda, its claims should not be ignored[4]. 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:[5]. 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. Zero^talk 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. KamelTebaast 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. KamelTebaast 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)