Talk:From the river to the sea

Problems of the leading:

Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region.

A link to the English translation of Hamas charter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

I didn't see the relationship: I believe Hamas's reference to "from river to sea" is from the Article 20 of their charter, but in the same article Hamas stated its acceptance of the 1967 borders. Moreover, Hamas has stated in Articles 16 and 17 that they do not hate Jews and oppose Antisemitism. Why would Hamas's use of the slogan lead to it being explained as genocide of the Jews? This makes no sense.

It is a fact that Hamas quotes this slogan in their charter, and it may be another fact that some critics believe that this slogan means the expulsion of Jews, but is there a causal relationship between them?

Reference 8 makes no mention of the causal relationship, and the same goes for reference 10. Reference 10 simply quotes some "Jewish organization" saying there is a causal link, which is obviously an opinion, but the article describes it as a fact, this is a WP:SYNTH.

I think "Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." should be changed to "Critics argue that its use by such Palestinian militant groups means it implicitly advocates the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And even according to these sources, the cause is not the 2017 Charter, but the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong link

The link marked with (3) has nothing to do with the preumtion this slogan was created by zionists. Please be more careful. 91.80.83.35 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

+972 Magazine

This publication is not a reliable source on the topic. I'm deleting 2 sentences that cite this source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Let's keep wikipedia encyclopedic. Badabara (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. There were two sources, nothing wrong with either. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to cite other sources that are more credible? Have you looked at +972? Badabara (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I may have it wrong but wikipedia describes +972 Magazine as a "left-wing news and opinion". So perhaps keep the B'Tselem source, and look for an additional not left-wing source? Badabara (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with left wing (or right wing) news sources, bias does not equal unreliability, recent discussions at RSN indicate editors view the source as reliable. What is it they said that you object to, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I assumed the nature of bias is at the core unreliable. I personally try to use unbiased sources. Can you please send me a link to the recent discussions at RSN?

My objection is the title of the article "Regime of Jewish Supremacy" is off topic. Odd to have a report by B'Tselem from 2021 in the "history of the phrase" section. The very long run on sentence appears to be posted out of context.

By the way it turns out to be 1 very long run on sentence, not 2 sentences... Badabara (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No such thing as an unbiased source, all sources are biased, only the degree is a question. The article title is not cited? We have + 972 reporting on what Btselem said in an article with that title. Just go to RSN and put +972 in the search box if you want to see discussions about them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

While the Likud Platform of 1977 made use of phrasing which is similar enough to "River to the Sea", no mention of river or sea, in Hebrew, are used in the Current Likud platform, which can be found here. More specifically, page 6 of the document, references terms and conditions for peace talks with the palestinians. The relevant passage reads as follows:

The current peace talks in Annapolis, which focus on achieving a final and quick agreement, miss the their purpose

We do not believe that the Palestinians are ready for a historic compromise that will end the conflict.

There is little evidence that the Palestinians are ready to accept even the minimum demands demanded by an Israeli leader. The Palestinians rejected far-reaching concessions that we, the Israelis, offered eight years ago and their position has not changed or moderated even today. As far as the core issues are concerned.

Instead of helping Abu Mazen and Fayed, Israel should focus its efforts on improving the daily lives of The Palestinians. Pointwise, we must help them develop their economic system. Although it will not lead to the resolution of the conflict, it will create a calmer environment and, therefore, a high chance of a settlement and successful delivery. A Likud-led government will immediately focus on changing the situation on the ground.

When the time comes for final negotiations for peace, the Likud will present clear red lines: the Likud and the one who heads it will insist that the responsibility for the peace of the citizens of the State of Israel will remain in the hands of Israel and that Israel's right to defend its borders will be preserved, a right enshrined in Resolutions 242 and 338 of the United Nations. Yaffalandis (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Colla's "Context"

Despite his usage of the word "context", its from an opinion piece that does not provide a general neutral context to the use of the phrase but a rather POV one-sided take with a bunch of charged language.

Also contesting the solitary citation from Mondoweiss in this regard, as per RS, it should be treated with caution and its neutrality and reliability in this regard is not strong enough to stand on its own. Would prefer other more reliable sources to be providing "context" in this regard. Mistamystery (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Using cautiously does not mean that it is not strong enough to stand on its own, nor does your view on the POV of a source make it so that the source is the issue and not your own POV. nableezy - 05:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery is correct. An opinion piece cannot be the base of what is presented as a neutral context. Even if it came form a more reliable source than Mondoweiss (whose current status is that there is no consensus on its reliability, as per the list here). Vegan416 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There’s literally no policy or guideline to back that opinion at all. nableezy - 13:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:RSOPINIONVegan416 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost everything written in politics, and a large part of what is written in history, is technically "opinion". We judge whether to use something, and whether or not to attribute it, according to the expertise of the author and the nature of the claims (more caution for more extraordinary claims, etc). Nableezy is correct and your two links do not support you. Zero^talk 14:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Colla's statements in this regard are brought up in an opinion piece. It is clearly marked so. So even if Monodweiss was a generally RS (which it isn't) the policy of RS:OPINION applies and it says:

"A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion."

When you put a single opinion in a section called "Context" it does not look to the reader as if they are reading an opinion, but rather it looks as if this is a neutral and universally accepted explanation of the context, and this is in violation of the policy I just quoted (and bolded). Vegan416 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I remember when this edit was made. This entire section was only ever inserted in the first place to parrot Colla's political opinion, not provide "context" to the conflict. (which this opinion piece only provides one side of) There has never been any other attempt to create a context section outside of the insertion of this quote.

It's a clear WP:VOICE failure: Avoid stating opinions as facts / Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts / Avoid stating facts as opinions. There are no grounds to have musings on "bantustans" in a context section...unless the section is "Context in Palestinian Use"

As we already have an abundantly built out history of the phrase section (which provides ample context), and the current context section is only Colla's opinion, requesting we shelve this section entirely until there is a reason to even have a separate context section on its own. Mistamystery (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Bantustan is an aka at Palestinian enclaves and its use is not restricted to Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Bantustan is an apartheid South Africa term. It's not in common neutral use. Mistamystery (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is used a lot in the Palestinian context, that's why it is a bolded aka in the article, take a look at the lengthy discussion about it sometime. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed commonly used and a host of reliable sources say flat out it is commonly used in reference to the splintered Palestinian enclaves Israel has created. nableezy - 20:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Elliott Colla is a professor of Arabic literature and subject-matter expert. He could write his opinion on toilet paper and it would still have some bearing here. Why are editors here acting like the words of a professor, here not published on toilet paper but on a editorially controlled website, are inadmissable? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Elliott Colla, professor of Arabic and Middle Eastern Studies is known for his heated essays.

In response to Colla's article from 2006, titled "Academic Freedom and Middle East Studies," four Brown faculty members wrote letters refuting Colla's claims, and President Ruth Simmons personally expressed her support the Brown University Rabi's complaints in the dispute. Badabara (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

is known for his heated essays Says who? In 2006? Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

- Says who?

Says Brown University Professor of Sociology Emeritus Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Professor of Pediatrics Edwin Forman, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies Steven Hamburg and Professor of Medical Science Arthur Landy.

The professors describe Colla's article as "full of inaccuracies, mistaken interpretations and malevolent insinuations." Badabara (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those are experts on this topic. Feel free to cite a professor of pediatrics for pediatric content. nableezy - 20:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if he's an expert, his opinion is now given undue weight. We can mention his opinion without quoting him at length. Alaexis_¿question? 16:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Since the deference to Colla is largely on the subject of archival Arabic literature, I'm not sure I see the problem

... Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you misundertand what we are talking about. We are talking about this section From the river to the sea#Context. Not about the other places where Colla is mentioned in the article. In this section there is nothing at all about "archival Arabic literature", and this section represents Colla's opinion as if it is the only consensus explanation of the context, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RSOPINION. Vegan416 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, since that section is currently single sourced, the obvious solution is to find additional sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Iskandar323 is correct. إيان (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Which says we include all significant views, not censor the ones you dislike. nableezy - 20:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Let’s just rename the section “Palestinian Context” or “Palestinian Perspective” and call it a day. Scholarly reputation aside, it’s an opinion piece in a (widely considered) partisan publication and need be appropriately “context”ualized if its to remain. Mistamystery (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

American professor Elliott Colla is the spokesman of the Palestinian perspective? Give us a break. إيان (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ding, it’s a. An attempt to ethnic mark a reliable source and b. Totally inaccurate. nableezy - 06:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is rather accurate that he represents the Palestinian POV. Elliott Colla is a public supporter of the BDS movement (see is signature here). He is also a member of the anti-Zionist movement JVP. It is safe to say that he is fairly biased against Israel, and this should be taken into account especially when you use an opinion piece he published in a non-RS, rather than an academic work that he published in a RS. Vegan416 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The idea that because somebody supports Palestinian rights they support the so called Palestinian POV has no basis in fact or even basic logic. And the idea that we should ethnic mark a source, even if that were accurate, is likewise founded in nothing but your imagination. nableezy - 09:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You are gaslighting. Colla doesn't merely "support Palestinian rights". He is a member of a self-declared anti-Zionist organization (the JVP). This goes way beyond supporting Palestinian rights, to the realm of denying Jewish rights. Anyway since you agree that the "Context" section is not balanced as it is now, it's pointless to fight over semantics. In the next days when I find time I'll rectify this imbalance by adding more views to the section. Vegan416 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a BLP violation, AZ is not equal to AS. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Anti Zionism is definitely denying the Jewish right of self-determination. And you are also straw-manning, since I didn't mention here the word AS at all. Whether AZ=AS or not is (a related but) different discussion we had in a different place. Vegan416 (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Accusing a LP of denying Jewish rights when they have done no such thing is a BLP viuolation (being a member of JVP is not denying Jewish rights and Anti Zionism is definitely denying the Jewish right of self-determination is just rubbish). Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is really straying away from subject of this thread, so I responded to you here: User talk:Vegan416/DiscussionPage#Anti-Zionism is denying the right of existence of a Jewish state in the holy land. We can continue the discussion there if you wish, without disturbing the other good people here. Vegan416 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit, we don’t discuss our personal views on talk pages and if you continue I’ll be asking that you be made to stop. nableezy - 12:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. But just in case read this:

"Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to): [...]

• Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki."

Vegan416 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, I don’t care what you think about a supposed Jewish right to self determination in Palestine, and I don’t want to continue reading such nonsense. nableezy - 14:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not actually very relevant, but please get the facts straight. Those signatures aren't on BDS, but a statement on the New York Review of Books about the need to boycott illegal Israeli settlements, which are already illegal under international law, so that's a position that's wholly consistent with simply upholding international law, and not applying double standards to Israel – which is the sort of intellectually consistent and common sense position one might hope that academics would take. And JVP is "for peace". Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You get your facts straight. That letter Colla signed is a call to boycott all of Israel. Not just the settlements in the west bank. Read it. And the JVP explicitly says it is unequivocally opposed to Zionism. It's right in the first paragraph here. Vegan416 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with a call to boycott Israel? That's what they did with South Africa. What's wrong with anti-Zionism? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You are straw-manning yet again. I didn't say it's wrong. I said this proves he is not neutral with regard to this conflict. And therefore he cannot be presented as a single neutral source as he is currently presented in the Context section. He needs to be either balanced by other opinions, or explicitly stated to be taking the Palestinian POV on this. This is required by WP:NPOV and WP:RSOPINION. Anyway I already what I'm going to do about it after some break I'm taking starting now. Bye for now. Over and out. Vegan416 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t the Palestinian POV, and your repeated attempts at ethnic marking a non Palestinian as Palestinian will continue to be ignored. nableezy - 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please at bare minimum read what you post. You said he signed a statement. As BDS noted, that was: "A statement recently published in The New York Review of Books calls for “an Economic Boycott and Political Nonrecognition of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”. You can pivot to some JVP blog if you like, but that's not the original statement you mentioned. Also, membership of an organisation doesn't imply that you believe in everything on one of its blogs. Even then, there's nothing wrong with boycotting Israel in general: it's perfectly reasonable – not least in the current context of plausible genocide. It's arguably a moral imperative for anyone that believes in human rights and disavows their abuse. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Please learn to read beyond the title. Here is the last paragraph of the letter that Colla signed: "Palestinian civil society has called for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against all entities, Israeli or international, that are complicit in denying Palestinians everywhere their rights. As the apartheid South Africa boycott shows, this is the most effective, nonviolent way to achieve freedom, justice, and equality for all."
2. You are entitled to have your personal opinions about the boycotting of Israel, but you cannot present someone who is in favor of BDS as if he is neutral on the IP conflict. That's a violation of NPOV.

Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV refers to sourcing not bias. Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. NPOV refers to a lot more than just sourcing. Read this page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Particularly relevant here are the following sentence in the section "Article structure" here: "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false." Vegan416 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense yourself, NPOV means including all significant views, not claiming that an American academic is espousing the Palestinian POV rather than his own. Obviously opinions are presented as opinions, but it isn’t a Palestinian POV because duh there isn’t such a thing as a monolithic Palestinian POV and even if there were he isn’t Palestinian. nableezy - 21:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As a general rule, having pages sourced to relevant academic personages is kinda the ideal scenario. This is actually a better source than normal. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"From the river to the sea, the Confederacy shall be free!"

Slogans can morph and get transplanted. Has anybody come across From the river to the sea, the Confederacy shall be free! The parallelism works. Pete unseth (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)