Talk:Breaking the Silence (organization)

message: 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)
replies: text: Roger. Thanks for adding "alleged."ShamWow (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check? 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The term "servicemen" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critic, new section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anonimity

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Orders to Israeli soldiers against speaking out publicly

message: 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)
thread_title: By publishing "true accounts" of soldiers

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Ten  Israeli based “human rights” organizations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Last reverts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Labelling of [[Avigdor Lieberman]]'s politcal stance on his Wiki article 

message: 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)
replies: text: ..and I've reverted you. The statement is supported by the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian funding to BTS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yehuda Shaul 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is the information not well sourced and written in a clear manner? Kigelim (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BtS or Breaking the Silence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove [citation needed] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I have fixed few glaring POV violations there is more probably--Shrike (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Editing to update article and improve tone

message: 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)
thread_title: Section: Israeli government criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: Section: Reaction of government and military

message: 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)
thread_title: Reconsider section on 2009 testimony from military school

message: 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)
thread_title: Give complete cites

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you, Parkwells. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reorganized to put gov't criticism and actions together

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. SP00KYtalk 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Makor Investigation

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

message: @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)
thread_title:  Undo revert of dovidroth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The use of gunrel EI is not appropriate here