Talk:From the river to the sea/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RfC: Should our article's first interpretation of this slogan's pro-Palestinian usage be what its users say it means or what those opposed to it claim that its users mean?

Should our article's first interpretation of this slogan's pro-Palestinian usage be what its users say it means or what those opposed to it claim that its users mean? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be historically accurate. I posted links showing it’s use back to 1948 Researcher175 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Our article starts with a sentence explaining the simple geographic meaning of this phrase. The second sentence addresses its political meaning when combined with "free Palestine" or similar. In this second sentence, should the first interpretation that our article provides be:

• the interpretation of those who use the phrase (e.g. equal rights etc), or
• the interpretation that those who oppose the phrase claim that its users mean (e.g. genocide against Jews etc)?

Clearly the article will continue to cover both perspectives. The question which has been disputed here for many weeks is simply the correct order. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure we really need an RFC for this, a logical flow dictates that the origin for the phrase should be mentioned first (currently missing in the lead) followed by usage of the originators. Complaints about that usage should follow, otherwise it is all backwards. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. An RFC on this is overkill. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. I opened it because there are some newish editors here who appeared to hold a different view. If no opposition in a day I will close it so we don’t waste time. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it make sense to lead with origins of the phrase, then usage by the originators, then the statement "The slogan's meaning remains contentious", followed by complaints about the usage? Badabara (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The question is phrased misleadingly. The originators of the phrase did not call for "equal rights," and this is far from agreed upon among users of the term (such as Hamas in their charter, for example). The debate is not between pro-Palestinian and anti-Palestinian users, it is between different Palestinian factions and their supporters. Marokwitz (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The question is about the order, the details are another issue. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree; an RfC isn't a great way to resolve disputes like this. DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Refuse to participate in biased RFC - and this disruptive behaviour should be stopped: The framing of this question lacks neutrality and does not conform to WP:NPOV. It's important to engage in good-faith dialogue and seek consensus to resolve such disputes. What you are doing here is not that. Marokwitz (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. Historyday01 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

In what sense is this question disruptive? 20WattSphere (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this RFC is pointy Drsmoo (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

interpretation of those who use the phrase first Per Selfstudier—The logical order for the article is to first present what it means/has meant for those who use/have used the phrase. Makes absolutely no sense to begin with critical reactions. إيان (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior - I agree with points raised above, there has been repeated disruptive behavior in the article. Furthermore, serious concern regarding NPOV of the question you're trying to raise. as raised above me. We must act in goodfaith and dialogue and seek consensus and this has been repeatedly been flaunted. Therefore, don't think is appropriate. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS while talking about the need for good faith (that goes for Marokwitz too, and Drsmoo & Historyday01 who assert disruption/pointiness). WP:AGF requires us all to avoid personalising disputes. Comments about an editor's conduct are inappropriate here, and belong on a user's talk page or on a noticeboard; all of you should know better. DFlhb (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I will say in saying that the RFC is "overkill" and agreeing it is "biased," I'm commenting about how this RFC is flawed, unnecessary, disruptive, and pointless. I'm not personally attacking the OP in the slightest or "personalizing disputes." I'm not sure why you are wagging your finger at some people, talking about personalizing disputes, and comments about editor's conduct. The actions and conduct of any editor can be criticized without engaging in personal attacks. I see criticism of the OP's proposal, not of the OP themselves, here. So, I don't know what you are talking about.

This RFC SHOULD be criticized so as to set an example so that other users don't come along (because you know they will) and think this behavior is ok. It is NOT. This RFC is helpful to no one. The OP posted this malformed and unnecessary RFC here, so the OP is the one who started this discussion, so it is only right to respond.Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template, since people seem to agree this shouldn't be one. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The people that agree are all on one side of the debate here, basically attempting to stop discussion about the issue because they dont think they can win the debate on the merits. nableezy - 21:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

About the Introdutory section

Although, as noted in the intro, this slogan has been in use since the 1960s, the entry was added to Wikipedia only in October 2023. Most of the sources cited were also written around this time and after. This is not a coincidence. The slogan gained traction with the general public following the Oct 7 attack by Hamas, the ensuing war and demonstrations against Israel around the world, where it was commonly used. This use of the slogan in demonstrations provoked criticism and led to a wider public debate. While use of the slogan had indeed aroused interest in the past (Nasar, 2018), but the current context, the slogan's current use and the accompanying discussion alone constitute the reasons behind the broad interest in the slogan in general, and the justification for the creation of a unique Wikipedia entry in particular. This crucial context is completely absent from the intro. Whoever reads it will get a critically partial picture. The current context must feature prominently and centrally in the introduction.

I do not have permissions to edit the content, so this is an action item for someone who can. Zyakov (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The phrase, including the "Palestine will be free" rhyme, has been a staple of pro-Palestinian protests for decades. The only thing that is new is the widespread persuasive definition claims made against it by those opposed to pro-Palestinian protests. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To be more precise, the phrase has been a call for destruction of Israel for decades. The only thing that is new is the context of the Oct 7th events. Zyakov (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The evidence says your claim is false, unless by the emotive word “destruction” you actually just mean the removal of oppression and the institution of democracy for all, and/or the concept of Israel to the listener requires the domination of Palestinians. Listen to this speech by the State of Palestine in the UN a few days ago:

Let the law be the measure by which all are judged, not propaganda and hateful, biased, spin steeped in racism. And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

According to From the river to the sea, the "free state" would only include the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration. This would mean the exclusion of 99% of the current Jewish population.

Anyway, I'm not up to carrying a debate. My point remains -

The current context must feature prominently and centrally in the introduction. Zyakov (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The PLO's policy of only including the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration. only applied from the mid-60s until the early 70s, and equally 'exclusionist' statements from that period were made by Israeli politicians.

From a WP point of view, while the current use and controversy deserve to be noted, and, as you say may have been the catalyst for the creation of the article - still, the entire history of the phrase is part of what creates context. We have a specific policy against Recentism. This isn't a news outlet. Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing me to the concept. However, as more than 60% of the references are dated from October 23 and onward as well a significant part of the content and several sections I'm not the one who Recentism should be addressed to.

Anyway, while I completely agree that the entire history of the phrase is part of what creates context, I still insist that the current events are a significant and crucial part of the context, and this will remain true in any future perspective. As such it deserves an appropriate weight in the introductory part Zyakov (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

On the basis of a quick look, I would dispute the high number of recent articles ('retrieved' obviously is not 'written'), but even if you are right, the date of the references is fairly academic. Many of those refs are 'historic explainer' articles, what they are covering is the history of the term, they aren't necessarily covering recent events, so 'Recentism' doesn't apply to that content.

I don't know specifically what coverage of current events you want included in the lead, I can see the sense it recording widespread 2023 use of the slogan (in demonstrations etc) and widespread condemnation/complaint of its use. It needs to be born in mind that the lead should be an introduction to, and summary of the main body of the article. So yes it's possible that recent events are under-covered in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Zyakov - internationally, I suspect that virtually nobody who is currently protesting against Israel is calling for the "destruction" of Israel. I suspect they are calling for Israel to end its occupation of Palestine. Do you have any good sources to support the former claim? 20WattSphere (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR in "Context" section

20WattSphere, in your edit summary you wrote these facts are common knowledge, not original research, thus don't need to be cited. See WP:BLUE

In fact, the content you added, the way it was characterized, and where it was placed is all your POV and in order for it to stay in the article it would absolutely need to be supported by a reliable source about the phrase 'from the river to the sea' per WP:Verifiability, and it would probably have to be attributed to the source. Also, see WP:REDSKY. إيان (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I will find some sources, but it sounds like your concern is more around WP:NPOV than a verifiability concern? I'm more than happy for you to edit that paragraph to adjust the way it is characterized. I threw that together pretty fast because I think the page really needed some background info for a new reader to understand the general situation, and why there is controversy around the phrase, and I thought (maybe wrongly) that most of those statements would not be controversial. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We should remove the unsourced text and replace it with a template such as Template:Further and link to relevant articles such as Zionism, 1948 Palestine war, and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. What is contained in the content of the context section should come from reliable sources. إيان (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a particular statement in that paragraph that you think is dubious? As far as I can tell it is all very basic common knowledge, there was Mandatory Palestine, then the UN Partition Plan, then various invasions and wars (this was not explained fully), now there are separated Palestinian territories. This seems important for a reader to understand in order to understand the phrase. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, is it not supported pretty much directly by the references in the paragraph directly below? It is the same story, just spelled out a bit more literally. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was ambiguous when I saw the content added - the 'definitional element' establishing the area being discussed (basically para 1) is useful context, but could easily be incorporated in the main text (if it isn't there already). The second para (the 'joined up' nature of the 1947 proposal in contrast to the diffuse 2023 reality) strays into 'comment' to my mind and would be better attributed to a source recording its relevance to the slogan. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was also thinking the para could be shuffled into the one below at some point. Since it's much the same as the Elliott Colla quote but a bit more detail. I'm happy to have a go at that tomorrow, or if anyone else wants a go that's fine 20WattSphere (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION

Pincrete, please explain why you re-added the content below that WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION:

The slogan, which has been used since the 1960s by the Palestinian nationalist movement, has come under international scrutiny following its use by various groups. In the 1960s, Fatah used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine which would only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration.

The cited sources, American historian Robin D. G. Kelley and Pakistani newspaper Dawn (not a scholarly source anyway), do not support these statements. Neither mention Fatah, and Fatah is mentioned nowhere else in this article as it stands. In Kelley's article, he states that the phrase started as a Zionist slogan, but this does not appear in the introduction.

References

إيان (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to address these issues of sourcing and chronology in the introduction before, but Dovidroth reverted my edits with no explanation other than WP:ONUS. إيان (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Those changes look fine to me, to be honest. Not sure why they would be reverted. This page is a nightmare for editors because there are SO MANY edit wars! Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

إيان, the lead is a summary of the body and sourcing in the lead is optional, so long as it is an accurate summary of the body. I still don't understand what you consider to be inaccurate. Are you saying that Palestinian nationalist movement did not use the slogan from the 1960s - for the purpose described by Kelley and others? If you were wanting to be strictly accurate, you could have altered the word 'Fatah', rather than removing text covering roughly 50 years of well documented use - covered by almost all 'explainer articles' of which we cite quite a few in the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've altered Fatah to PLO, though it could equally be PNC if preferred. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete thank you for fixing the flagrant Fatah issue.

Kelley, the historian cited for the PLO information, first states in that source that the phrase began as a Zionist slogan. Elliott Colla has found no documented evidence of use of the phrase in Palestinian protest culture until the First Intifada starting in the late 80s. This is all covered in the History section of the body. Why does the introduction take Kelley's statement about the PLO's use of the phrase but not about its Zionist beginnings?

Also, why is its use in the 1977 Likud charter relegated to the end of the introduction, out of chronological order? إيان (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't choose the structure of the lead, and didn't write the 'Fatah' text, but in so far as I an able to defend a structure that doesn't present itself as strictly historical, nor need it be IMO - I will attempt to answer your questions.

Last question first - the Likud/R-Wing use is documented as being less common and usually a modified form of the slogan's text, so it does make sense to treat it after and seperately from its 'main' use, as a pro-Palestinian slogan. If you want to include its genesis as a Zionist slogan (not expanded much AFAIK in Kelley or anyone else), that's a poor argument for removing its use by PLO etc since the '60s. Throughout the whole lead, we are entitled to give WEIGHT to which use of the slogan is most extensively covered by most sources and AFAI can see the slogan has become most strongly associated with the pro-Palestinian cause.

Finding no documented use in Palestinian protest culture until a certain point may be a notable fact for the body but has no bearing on whether the expression existed in other forms and is recorded much earlier - "no documented evidence" is of course not evidence of anything anyway. A lead is a summary of the main points in an article, it obviously cannot cover everything. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

btw, if you or someone else has better access to sources than I, you might want to check out "The phrase has been used by the Israeli Prime Minister, Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, in speeches". I cannot access the source used, but understood that Netanyahu always referred to 'West of the Jordan' when wanting to refer to the 'greater area'. Pincrete (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Chronology states the 1960s is before the 1970s no? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

When and where (and by whom) was it decided that this lead had to be strictly chronological? Most WP leads are a mixture of WEIGHT, thematic coherence, and chronology. Why have a couple of editors (seemingly unilaterally) declared this one to be an exception? Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete,

It's unclear to me why, from the Kelley source, the Zionist genesis should be dropped but the 1960s PLO stuff should be kept, because Georgetown scholar of political slogans in the Arab world Elliott Colla writes that he has not encountered the phrase "min al-nahr ila al-bahr" or "min al-mayyeh lil-mayyeh" in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s and notes that "the phrase appears nowhere in the Palestinian National Charters of 1964 or 1968, nor in the Hamas Charter of 1988."

Indeed, Kelley, after stating that the PLO adopted the slogan, writes that "the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded 'the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety' and the restoration of land and rights—including the right of self-determination—to the indigenous population." There is a call for restoration of territorial unity, but nothing explicitly 'from the river to the sea.'

It appears that the first hard evidence of the river-sea concept in political literature is the 1977 Likud charter that states "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty."

BTW, if you'd like an accessible source with relevant quotations and citations, here is Columbia University anthropologist and scholar of Israel-Palestine Nadia Abu El Haj's recent post on 'from the river to the sea': https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/zionism-s-political-unconscious إيان (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying, you are arguing as though the lead and its sources are the whole article. Other sources, such as Maha Nassar. say that "That’s how the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” gained traction in the 1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of historic Palestine." Even the JTA says "The phrase was originated by Palestinian nationalists in the 1960s, when the entire Palestinian movement sought Israel’s elimination. Mainstream Palestinian groups dropped the phrase after Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized one another subsequent to the 1993 Oslo Accords, but it was then adopted by Islamists, including the Hamas terrorist group." Use in the 1960s is widely recorded in sources, almost all of which appear to, at least partially, contradict Colla and your observation the first hard evidence of the river-sea concept in political literature is the 1977 Likud. I don't see anything like the same level of coverage of early Zionist use, nor even r-wing Israeli use. I'm not even clear when the 'early' Zionist use was nor how/by whom used.

The PNC charter may not use the phrase, but commentators are linking the slogan to what the PLO were demanding at that time "the usurped homeland in its entirety"- just as the JTA above link the slogan to 'Israel’s elimination'. Interptetation is inevitable regarding a slogan that has little meaning beyond being a vague geographic descriptor. We can only ensure that the interpretations put upon the slogan are accurately recorded in a balanced fashion. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting narratives

I was asked to explain to a friend yesterday why discussing the Israel Palestine conflict is so divisive. It is easy to condemn Oct 7 and easy to condemn the ongoing Gaza massacre. It’s only when you attempt to justify either event that it gets complicated. They asked me to explain a century of the two narratives in five minutes, and I did my best. It went something along the lines of the below:

	Why was there conflict?
	Core of the pro-Palestinian explanation	Core of the pro-Israeli explanation
Pre-1917	Foreign colonies without integration, expelling peasants from their land	Antisemitism
Mandate period	…plus country being “given away” by a third party	Antisemitism
Post-1948	…plus Nakba, expulsion	Antisemitism
Post-1967	…plus occupation, settlement and apartheid	Antisemitism
Post-2005	…plus blockade, mowing the lawn	Antisemitism

The reason for putting this here is it seems to explain the dissonance between editors of this article over the last few weeks. The table shows that is understandable that those who lean towards the pro-Israeli narrative would see antisemitism in the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” because antisemitism is at the foundation of the entire century-long story they believe in. It is equally understandable that those who use the phrase, i.e. those who lean towards the pro-Palestinian narrative, consider such a claim abhorrent or manipulative, because antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happened in this conflict in their view of the history.

Long story short, as editors we should accept that the two groups will not and can not see eye to eye on this topic. Or on analogous matters such as the debates around Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism.

Perhaps the nuance here is whilst it is acceptable to say that some perceive the phrase in a negative way, we must not write any statements in wiki-voice that suggest the phrase is actively used in a negative way, because there are no cases at all where the user has stated such negative intentions to this specific phrase.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an good-faith empathetic stab here. However, I'm not sure how helpful it is to getting at a NPOV understanding of the context for this page.

First, only one "side's" (I reject the false binary that is forced onto this conflict) narrative is afforded any nuance. Second, the chart ignores core, fundamental narratives on the "pro-Israel side" such as the Jewish expulsion from Arab countries, a century of Arab rejectionism, repeated invasion by Arab armies, decades of Arab and Palestinian terrorism against Jewish and Israeli citizens (and bystanders) both in Israel across the glove. Ignoring those is a gross misrepresentation of the conversation. It's not comprehensive and NPOV to say that the pro-Israel narrative just paints everything with the antisemitism brush, and it's also flat wrong and a bit shocking to read that "antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happening in this conflict."

A more accurate chart may look something like this (keeping each respective sides' POV language and terminology):

	Why was there conflict?
	Core of the pro-Palestinian explanation	Core of the pro-Israeli explanation
Pre-1917	Foreign colonies without integration, expelling peasants from their land	Pogroms and violence over denial of claim to indigenous homeland
Mandate period	…plus country being “given away” by a third party	...plus continued denial of indigenous claim, millennia-denied opportunity for self-determination, massacres by Arab populations/governments
Post-1948	…plus Nakba, expulsion	...plus Arab rejectionism, invasion, ethnic cleansing and expulsion from Arab countries
Post-1967	…plus occupation, settlement and apartheid	...plus continued Arab & Palestinian rejectionism, invasion, terrorism, bombings, hijackings; antisemitism
Post-2005	…plus blockade, mowing the lawn	...plus continued Arab & Palestinian rejectionism, rocket fire, terrorism, bombings, antisemitism

All this to say, that while I agree that the two sides/groups may not see eye-to-eye, our job here is to report in a NPOV way what the reliable sources say. And reliable sources, such as those in the article, absolutely suggest that the phrase has been used to call for "in a negative way" (e.g., ethnic cleaning). I'm sure editors can agree to go with what reliable sources say, and not personal views. Longhornsg (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

With RL obligations, I'm not interested in carrying on another long talk page debate on this topic. We use RS, not editor interpretations. As editors can see, this rings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, frustratingly common across this page for months. Longhornsg (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Longhornsg: thanks for your thoughtful reply. I smiled reading your table. Look at each of the additions you made and consider what the pro-Israeli narrative claims to be the reason why each of these things happened:

• Pogroms and violence over denial of claim to indigenous homeland => Why? => Antisemitism
• massacres by Arab populations/governments => Why? => Antisemitism
• Arab rejectionism => Why? => Arab stupidity
• invasion => Why? => Antisemitism
• ethnic cleansing and expulsion from Arab countries => Why? => Antisemitism
• terrorism, bombings, hijackings => Why? => Antisemitism
• rocket fire => Why? => Antisemitism

It is always the same underlying explanation, repeated in different ways.

It is making me think that this entire century of conflict is down to a misdiagnosis, which is still happening, most recently with the subject of this article.

I note your comment …flat wrong and a bit shocking to read that "antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happening in this conflict." As per my original point, the key is that this is a view held unswervingly and wholeheartedly by every single protagonist on the Palestinian / Arab side of the history. That you are surprised by that illustrates the depth of the problem. I will quote again this speech by the State of Palestine in the UN a few days ago:

And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.

And on your point And reliable sources, such as those in the article, absolutely suggest that the phrase has been used to call for "in a negative way" I suggest you look closely at each article and consider whether that reliable source is representing a particular viewpoint or otherwise claiming to have a solid fact. Also beware the faulty generalization – finding a handful of extremists on either side does not make a mainstream.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Will take a couple days to reply given RL. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Longhornsg I appreciate your attempt at making the one sided chart created by Onceinawhile more balanced, however you're chart is still not grounded in historical record.

There is no need to re-write history... only to study it.

Pre-1917 the Jews were purchasing land, mostly from vacant land owners. There is no record of expelling - only purchasing. Badabara (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Badabara: I suggest reading List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict (1880 onwards) and Sursock Purchases - expulsions of the villagers caused enormous resentment.

I should also note that a close reading of the sources at Jewish exodus from the Muslim world shows that Longhornsg's "expulsion from Arab countries" is not a correct picture of what really happened there.

None of this is relevant to the broader point though, which is that "antisemitism" is the pro-Israeli narrative's underlying explanation for every element of the conflict, whilst the pro-Palestinian side points to dispossession and oppression. The latter are visible facts, whilst the former is an ad hominem claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I know the other editor doesn't necessarily agree with this, in its entirety, but I'd say this chart is undoubtedly accurate. Much of the pro-Israel narrative these days is about antisemitism without a doubt. I'm not sure exactly how to make the page more balanced and remove the neutrality note, but I'd say the first step is to not include sources like directly linking to the ADL website (they are clearly not neutral and should not be treated as such). Historyday01 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors' views on the ADL aside, the ADL is green on WP:RSP (WP:RSPADL) and is a reliable source and significant voice on this topic. Its exclusion would be a violation of NPOV, which means that "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." NPOV does not mean we do not include perceived non-neutral sources. A neutral article would include the ADL's views alongside a panoply of other views published in RS. Longhornsg (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the ADL, I don't think its inclusion would be helpful, especially since they are pretty prevalent in the news media, and there could be a news article from a reputable organization which cites their views on the topic, would, in my view, be preferable, to citing their website directly. The wikilink you mentioned DOES say "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." I stand with that assessment. It is clearly a biased source, with controversial views, and as such, I would say it not reliable, and using caution here would warrant non-inclusion of the ADL website. Historyday01 (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased != unreliable, but sure, unbiased secondary RS summarizing and discussing the ADL's views can be acceptable. Longhornsg (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the neutrality problem in citing ADL for ADL's opinion, clearly expressed as such - and/or to the extent that they represent a distinct PoV among US Jewry and US Israel sympathisers, as 'spokesmen' of that opinion. Secondary source also acceptable of course.Pincrete (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

See, that's where I disagree. I don't mind citing their opinion, but it would be BETTER for a secondary source to be cited instead. And considering how much the ADL is cited in the mainstream media, it should be relatively easy to find a source. Historyday01 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. What is happening here and why is this in the talk page of this particular subject? Mistamystery (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a marginally off-topic discussion about use of partisan sources v neutral sources commenting on the partisan viewpoint! Pincrete (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Is the tag still justified? As there has been no recent neutrality discussion, I'm going to remove the tag per WP:BRD. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

My only justification for keeping it is that there are continued debates over the page's content... Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added it back. It appears impossible at the moment to reach a balanced lede. Certain editors appear to remain intent on having the lede skew to a one-sided POV. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Context Section

This section is rather confusing, I'm not sure its that needed. I added content that was important historical context to the slogan but apparently its irrelevant, since I assumed that this section is supposed to give context to the history behind the slogan. Perhaps its best to disperse this section all together since it only presents a narrow view. Also it's very little content. Furthermore, basing on Mondoweiss is problematic, which from my understanding is a newspaper whose staff views itself as anti Zionist. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What you added in this edit was exactly what we don't need: a cherry-picked selection of items that push a particular polemic viewpoint. And, yes, feel free to complain if other people do that. Zero^talk 11:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the context section should be kept minimal, or its main points be incorporated, but I question the logic of finding either a pro-, or anti-zionist source inherently problematic. It is in the nature of the subject that very strong and partisan views are held about this slogan and as long as those views are attributed to the author or publication, I don't see the problem in using sources which are partisan. Pincrete (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding mondoweiss it was in RSN Perennial sources that it is rather problematic no? I just think that if an entire section is built just on Elliot's Colla's article in Mondoweiss - its problematic. We should try and balance and ensure NPOV here. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

RSN Perennial sources actually says: "Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. I don't have any problem in attributing, but we aren't citing it for factual/journalistic matters anyhow. The reputation of the expert contributor (Colla) whose research and judgements they are publishing would seem to matter more than the site where he published them. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but it should be much clearer what the context section is about. It's problematic. Following your explanation I understand the problem arisen. Thank you Zero. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm similarly confused by this section: is it for historical context of use or interpretative? Right now it's basically just a tentpole for one scholar's musings and I'm not sure if that's the right move. I think it should be historical context of use and leave it at that. Mistamystery (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"From..., Palestine will be Arab"?

According to Haviv Rettig Gur, that is the slogan actually used by Palestinians when chanting in Arabic, as opposed to the "will be free" English version, used abroad. There's no mention of it anywhere in the article. This would make the political meaning much clearer. Arminden (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

More here on this Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added what I already knew so far, I leave it to others to add to it. NB: this Vox article mentions the "will be Arab" version in an equivocal way, using the present tense for its use, as opposed to the past tense for the "will be Islamic" version, but then treating both as similarly outdated and irrelevant, and the former specifically as if it were an ideologically pan-Arabic version, so Nasserist and sooo 1960s. Not so, shows for instance the Nov 2023 flyer posted by Rettig Gur. Can of worms. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Arminden, the information you've injected is POV and it's wrong. Haviv Rettig Gur is a journalist, not a scholar. There isn't even a verb tense in the versions you're talking about because the phrases are nominal sentences. إيان (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, pls read the flyer of "Students for Palestine" (with logo) in Leiden. First listed slogan is in English, the last one is in transliterated Arabic. I only changed Filistiin by using a cap. Rettig Gur is the main political commentator for Times of Israel, a sorce we use a lot. The Vox source I haven't used.

PS: Now I see what you mean. Even more wrong what you say, as I clearly commented on the English-language article, not on any Arabic slogans. So check it out:

"... one early version translates to “‘From the river to the sea’ ... or ‘from the water to the water, Palestine [is] Islamic,’” Colla said. “Maybe a more common version is, ‘Palestine is Arab.’” Past... Present (& common version)... Did you misread what I wrote? Like in honest mistake? I do hope so.

I didn't "inject" anything. Twisting facts starts and ends with the words we're using. Arminden (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

So we have dozens of scholars who say what the Arabic version is, but because a single journalist says that the REAL version is something else, we put this into the article in WP:VOICE, overriding every subject expert, both pro- and anti-Palestinian! The Vox source/Colla might suggest that there is such a variant, but little indication of how prevalent it is, but nothing from Gur endorses this being anything other than a single claim from a non-expert.Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the Princeton Alumni Weekly source used doesn't even claim that this is the Arabic version, it says that Rabbi Eitan Webb claims that this was what was being chanted in Arabic. How does he know? The author of the piece says something else and we have no reason to believe either are experts or speak Arabic even.Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What source does the Fatah claim come from?

Onceinawhile, this was probably unintentional, but you reintroduced the claim about Fatah that failed source verification. إيان (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Essential: the MEANING, not abstract categories of users

I know some try to spin the meaning of what they say, so a 3rd category must be "Controversial, equivocal meaning", including all hard-to-pin-down ones. But the essential first 2 categories can only be the exclusive options (Greater Israel & total Naqba, and anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Jewish, total genocide), and the well-meant civil/universal rights meaning. That's what MATTERS. Wishing the worst to millions vs. wishing them the best, realistically or not, naively or not, isn't that what ultimately matters to any right-minded person? Listing murderous & well-intended statements one next to the other, "neatly" by country and/or medium, is beyond stupid; we might as well close down Wiki, but also universities, media, humanity, pack up a dream ot two, and press the red button. All the red buttons, at once. The cycle back to the cave would be closed, but with no way back up. Fuck Wiki & everybody else for even getting so low. Arminden (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it is more complicated than that. The speaker, the context, the audience all matter. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Except it's not. People might often be functionally illiterate nowadays, but they know what they're saying, if it's in their mother tongue. A Palestinian who says "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free/Arab/Muslim", he knows what he means, and so do you, and so do I, and so does anyone who cares to think. If they say "Palestinians shall be free" - it can mean quite a different thing. Might, and that's good enough to move it out of the "genocidal" and into the "civil rights" or "equivocal" category.

When a literate Western person like Mr Hill says "And that is a free Palestine, from the river to the sea", he knows exactly what he means. No Israel, and damn the cost, who cares. I don't need "context", and neither does anyone. And if anyone had any doubts, he goes on to insult everyone with an IQ higher than the room temperature by tweeting "You say "River to the Sea" is "universally" understood to mean the destruction of the Jewish State? On what basis do you make this claim? Did it signify destruction when it was the slogan of the Likud Party? Or when currently used by the Israeli Right?" Of course it means destruction. But of the other side, and of its aspirations. We may go into comparing the ways and means - opressive occupation and settler fanaticism-driven aggression on one side, and butchery Timur Lenk-style on the other, with cutting open wombs and all the rest, plus suicide bombings as a sign of modernisation. And throw in the bombing of Gaza, for sure, and test it against the laws of war. But that has no bearing: the topic here is a slogan, with a clear message. Every accused will bring character witnesses, claim mitigating circumstances, and so on: what you call context and complexity. But any juror or judge has his own head to look at the facts and give a verdict. And a spade remains a spade. Arminden (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This is unhelpful. And wrong. Unless you find a user of the phrase who proudly says that it means what you say, then this is just imagination.

Anyway, your logic is flawed. Israel exists as a strong and successful country. But, ALSO, the existence of a nation state does not change the fact that the underlying region between the river and the sea remains Palestine today, just as it remains the Holy Land today. It is just a name, one of a few for the same place. Saying the area will be free, and using the historical regional name, means nothing more than the whole area will be free where freedom is denied. The strength of feeling by some against this slogan is really against the term Palestine vis a vis the term Israel. It is just a name game. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you could use the same logic for the slogan "America first". Despite its historic use by the KKK, you might argue simply it's a statement that American values are important to the American people.

... now put context, history, and usage into the mix and bingo! We have a statement that is divisive and tribal.

There is no Tabula rasa. You can not take the word "Palestine" and the word "free" in a slogan used by undeniable terrorist organizations that wish to eradicate all Jews from the region and claim such simple meanings as "geographic location" and "freedom". It doesn't work that way. Badabara (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Arminden and Badabara, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. إيان (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

And bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article! Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Now isn't this an incredibly aggressive comment, as well as a violation of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning. Sorry :). Homerethegreat (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Mainly directed at Arminden and Badabara, but the main purpose of the talk page isn't to argue our own views on the topic, rather to discuss the article and how to improve it. Talk pages (especially on contentious topics like Is-Pal) easily get bogged down in each of us offering our opinions! Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

particularly since Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter.

Is there a source to support this sentence? As I recall it was already criticized beforehand. The use by Fatah/PLO/PNC has also being critisized. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It is sourced, and with a quote. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Malik, (Guardian) says "Originally a call for a secular state in historic Palestine … it soon became a sectarian slogan, deeply inflected by antisemitism. In the hands of Hamas, it is a call for the driving out of all Jews from the region; at best, a demand for ethnic cleansing, at worst for genocide." So he is at least saying that any antisemitism is most extreme/explicit in the Hamas use. Similarly the Hamas use is the one most often cited by those who are offended by the use of the slogan (including the Forward piece about Marc Lamont Hill) .

While it is obviously very important that Hamas' use is recorded, I don't think it matters much either way whether the 'international scrutiny' has increased since the Hamas charter, which I assume is what you are questioning. Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Asking regarding if there is a source that supports that international criticism increased after Hamas usage. Otherwise it should just be the phrase has been criticized Homerethegreat (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Homerethegreat. I'm not seeing how the source posted by Pincrete supports the text in the article.Stix1776 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't claim it did support the specific text. The Hamas' use is especially objected to rather than was increasingly objected to. But as I said I don't object to Homerethegreat's proposed change. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

removal of attributed claims of two distinguished historians

Mistamystery, when you removed the attributed claims of two distinguished historians, Robin Kelley and Omer Bartov, you wrote: Kelley source is NPOV and makes claim without actual citation of origin. Bartov anecdote is not relevant to this article - unless the specific usage of “from the river to the sea” is invoked, it does not belong here. Please refer to talk page and perhaps RFC if this page is to include intimations as well as literal use.

If the source is described as NPOV and used extensively for other claims in the article, what's the issue? Many other attributed claims from people who don't cite their sources exist in the article. This claim is attributed. That should be enough.

Bartov speaks to the BBC in a segment entitled "من النهر إلى البحر" شعار أثار الجدل في أوروبا وبريطانيا، فما تاريخ هذا الشعار؟. 'From the river to the sea' is indeed specifically invoked. How is that not relevant? How does it not belong?

How does your removal of attributed claims of two distinguished historians improve the article? إيان (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a matter of Kelley being distinguished. Firstly, his piece is in essence an opinion piece, not a work of historical scholarship (he described the phrase as “odious” which no one seemed to pick up on or note as perhaps not the best source to drive home a historical argument). On Arab-Israeli articles, numerous sources have been “disqualified” from inclusion by editors (despite their works being published via academic channels) merely because of intimation of undue bias on the subject, which I am arguing here. Kelley only seems here to have been included because a paper he wrote is the first search result on google scholar when you look up “from the river to the sea”. Also, while acclaimed, he is not a recognized scholar in this particular subject. In this particular instance, I think it important to insist upon further independent scholarly research when the assertion being made is origination of the use of phrase. And if anyone *really* wants to keep this claim in here, it should be further down in the section surrounding disputes. It absolutely should not be in a leading position in the article when Kelley makes the claim but makes no effort to actually identify the origination of use.

Regarding Bartov, again - not a matter of his credibility. If you check the edit history of this page, numerous editors (prior to my arrival on this page, be assured) kept holding the line that this page is for specific invocations of the slogan itself. Not intimations pertaining to general territorial claims between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. By all means, re-include Bartov if the citation specifically invokes the slogan. But otherwise, as the standard on this page has been well policed thus far, we should have an RFC if we want to expand the parameters of the article to include the history of general claims “from the river to the sea” and not merely the invocation of the specific phrase. Mistamystery (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me just see if I can first fix the harv ref errors and then I will comment. Are all the Kelley refs from the same Jstor journal article? Save me some time trawling.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As stated above, if you go to Google Scholar and type in “From the river to the sea”, it’s the very first article that populates in the search result. Mistamystery (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I changed everything to sfn, some specific page numbers still needed in some places, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Kelley is a journal article that cannot be dismissed as an opinion piece, in fact attribution is not even strictly necessary. That he referred to the phrase as odious is neither here nor there, we do not need to include that, only the material relevant to the origin. I removed "odious" and the when tag, the source doesn't say when so asking that is pointless. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with keeping Kelley, it's a good source - DFlhb (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bartov is tangentially relevant because the quote obviously includes the territory known as the West Bank. It is perfectly possible that things like this led to the phrase itself, Kelley says that the Zionist origin was what led to the Likud charter phrasing. It would be good to see more sourcing on that, if possible. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have difficulty in seeing any relevance in the Bartov text. This article is about a slogan describing a substantial area, approx. the whole of historic Palestine. We already include very similar expressions describing claims of ownership of the same area (eg from r-wing Israelis), but unless we include every popular use of river/Jordan/sea that describes either party's 'ownership', I can't help feeling that we have gone off-topic via WP:OR. Is there a tangible connection between Bartov's text and the slogan? Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I presume as a result of reformatting, a monstrous long quote from Kelley "During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, … came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel." which used to be a quote within the cite, now takes uo a great chunk of the lead. I dont know how to fix sfn errors, but simply point this out.Pincrete (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you unable to look at the source? It’s not a text; Bartov is brought on to the BBC as an expert to speak about the history of ‘from the river to the sea.’ The segment—entitled "من النهر إلى البحر" شعار أثار الجدل في أوروبا وبريطانيا، فما تاريخ هذا الشعار؟ (in case a translation is needed: [‘From the river to the sea,’ a slogan that has stirred controversy in Europe and Britain; what’s the history of this slogan?])—is in Arabic, but Bartov speaks in English with Arabic subtitles. إيان (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But nothing in our text is about the slogan! Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Easily remedied at the expense of length. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: has changed sfns and reintroduced the harv errors. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think he's given too much weight in that section. And I agree with @Mistamystery 's assesment as well as the her/his/they/xe concern that the article's scope is expanding again without due discussion. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed if we expand the scope of the articles we'll have to include other similar calls that are interpreted as refering to destroying Israel... I'm not sure we want to over bloat the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s bothersome to me that there is this much pull to keep the Kelley quote in here when clearly there should be better sources available. His reputablity is secondary to the basic fact that he doesn’t actually provide the info the section is demanding - which is date of use. I really encourage everyone/anyone to please find better sourcing…we should not be debating such a weak source in this regard. Mistamystery (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

While it may bother you, a journal article is not a weak source. The precise date that some particular individual or individuals may have used the phrase is not relevant, it is implied from the text that it subsequently made its way into the Likud Charter, which is relevant. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a weak source because of the author (or it being published in a journal). It’s a weak source because it is being used to make a historical point without actually providing a date. Mistamystery (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Mistamystery, there is wide disagreement to your claim that Kelley source is weak. Your primary argument is your claim that it is "in essence an opinion piece". Yet it is a reputable scholar in a peer-reviewed reputable journal. And most importantly, you have not provided any better sources.

I also note that you are not holding that same lens up to the sources that you appear to agree with - every single opposing claim that the slogan has negative connotations is "in essence an opinion piece" because there remains no hard evidence for such claims.

Until a scholar publishes a detailed forensic analysis on this subject, which - given this year's out-of-the-blue controversy on this topic after half a century of usage - might happen in the next year or two, we have to make do with the best available. And, like it or not, this remains one of those. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Again:

Does the Bartov source specifically use “from the river to the sea”?

Also - did the Jabotinski movement specifically use this phrase as well?

I’m confused. Is this page about claims and desires regarding the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, or is it about the specific use of the phrase? Why was that paragraph restored if it does not use the phrase? Mistamystery (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Re Bartov, this was already answered above , he spoke in a segment "From the river to the sea,’ a slogan that has stirred controversy in Europe and Britain; what’s the history of this slogan?" so unless there is some mistranslation or something, that makes it relevant to the history. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a page “history of competing territorial claims in British Palestine” because that would solve this matter much easier.

I’ve moved the Bartov citation to the context section, as - again - there is no cited usage of this particular phrase by any of the parties referred to (regardless of what the name of the BBC piece is). Mistamystery (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that if Bartov neither uses the phrase nor says anything about the phrase in our text, then it - almost by definition - off-topic regardless of what the name of the BBC piece is. The BBC piece may be mainly about the slogan, but our Bartov text isn't at all about it. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What is so difficult about this source? It's explicitly about the phrase's history. If you don't understand Arabic you have to ask for help instead of dismissing or misrepresenting the source. Bartov speaks after the host introduces him:

الدكتور الإسرائيلي الأمريكي عمر بارتون الأستاذ المختص في الهولوكوست والتطهير العرقي في جامعة براون في الولايات المتحدة لم يختلف مع رأي الدكتورة فرسخ في تاريخ الشعار لدى الفلسطينيين ولكنه أوضح أصلا آخرا لنفس الشعار لدى الإسرائيليين يرجع إلى الحركة التصحيحية الصهيونية أي قبل قيام دولة إسرائيل في عام 1948.

إيان (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Google says that translates to:

"Israeli-American Dr. Omar Barton, a professor specializing in the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing at Brown University in the United States, did not disagree with Dr.Farsakh’s opinion regarding the history of the slogan among the Palestinians, but he explained another origin for the same slogan among the Israelis, dating back to the corrective Zionist movement, that is, before the establishment of the State of Israel in the year 1948"

Right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess "corrective" is revisionist? Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. إيان (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

So use the quote. I don't see why the above quote is being used instead of some secondhand depiction of some song. Mistamystery (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I was pondering how to say roughly the same thing as Mistamystery, but less directly. " Israeli-American professor Omar Barton gives another origin for the slogan among the Israelis, dating back to the early(?) Zionist movement, before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948" Does the song fit into that narrative?

The present text about the song establishes no relationship to the slogan. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As is apparent upon examination of the source, the quote I provided is from the presenter introducing the historian in Arabic. Bartov speaks in English of the Revisionist Zionist song containing the slogan "this bank is ours and the other one too" (in Hebrew: שׁתֵּי גָדוֹת לַיַּרדֵּן: זוֹ שֶׁלָּנוּ – זוֹ גַם-כֵּן!) as an origin of 'from the river to the sea' discourse among Zionists. إيان (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This would appear to tie in with Kelley reference to a Zionist origin. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That's where I originally had the text, in the history section. The source doesn't support its placement in the context section. إيان (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the proximity, but "appears to" does not mean confirms. Again this article is not about political claims but a phrase, its history, and usage. Run an RFC if you think it should change, but otherwise general discussion regarding territorial claims and ambitions belong on other pages. Mistamystery (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have come full circle The present text about the song establishes no relationship to the slogan. No discernible one at least. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Why should distinguished historian Omer Bartov's expert testimony on the history of 'from the river to the sea' to the BBC, a reputable news source, in a segment explicitly about the phrase's history, not appear—attributed to said historian—in the history section of the article? What is the issue Mistamystery and Pincrete are seeing? What issue would an RFC decide?

Is it that Bartov doesn't parse out the sequence of words 'from the river to the sea' verbatim? This article isn't about a prescribed sequence of words—it's about reference to territory with regard to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea—in various linguistic formulations, as min an-nahr 'ilā l-baḥr and min al-mayyeh lil-mayyeh in Arabic, as 'from the river to the sea' in English, etc.; in various textual formulations, in graffiti, in protest chants, in formal public addresses, in official political messaging, etc.—in conjunction with a political idea expressed or implied with regard to that territory.

The relationship, if it needs to be spelled out, is describing territory with relation to the Jordan River in conjunction with a political idea about that territory. إيان (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Replace the text about the song with prose describing what was said about the phrase per the translation above and where it was said, then I see no problem with inclusion or having the two sources together. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm not clear exactly what you're suggesting.

If you're referring to the Arabic text I put above, it's what the BBC journalist said, not Bartov. If you're referring to the Hebrew lyrics, I provided just for the sake of this discussion. Bartov doesn't give the Hebrew; he gives an English translation.

Could you propose text for our article? إيان (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That text is a good source for what Bartov said, so that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There's also an interview with Bartov here in English, (about 10.50 mins in). He again mentions the 'two banks' song, when discussing the chant, but apart from the song and the chant both being 'territorial' in character, he doesn't link the two in any substantive way - neither being the precursor nor referring to the same territory. They are both 'territorial' in character and refer to the Jordan, that appears to be the only connection. I can't help but feel that the 'two banks' song is off-topic here. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Quotes around "ancestral homeland"

Adding quotation marks around ancestral homeland suggests that the claim is tenuous at best, and completely false at worse (see Scare quotes). Jewish culture and ancestry indisputably originates in the Holy Land/Palestine/Israel. Hell, the first definition for "diaspora" is Jews living outside of that region ^[1]. There is also no reason to think that these quotation marks are being used to suggest that the words are a direct quote from the source, because that doesn't provide any valuable information to the reader. The quotation marks should be removed. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding quotes here does not suggest the claim is tenuous - it does suggest it is how the place is referred to and seen by one group, but not by all - as the Jewish homeland. I would have thought that whose land this was recently, relatively recently, historically across many centuries and whose land this was in ancient (earliest recorded) times is central to the whole conflict. Two groups of people at least consider this to be their ancestral homeland. Also it is part of a quote from ADL, rather than a neutral term used by the source, I've moved the quote marks to make that clearer. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete The claims are central to the conflict, but that doesn't necessitate quotation marks. It is settled history that Jewish culture originates in the Levant. The quotation marks remain clunky, and there is no need to keep it as a quoted sentence fragment, beyond to say that it is the perspective of the ADL and not of Wikipedia. That isn't how wikipedia articles work.

If you are so passionate about having quotation marks, the entire passage can be brought in. Otherwise, they should be removed as they take away far more than they add. TimeEngineer (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

TimeEngineer, looking again, in context, it is already clear that the whole sentence is communicating an ADL view, rather than being a WP:VOICE statement, so the quotes are unnecessary. I have removed them. Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality banner

I acknowledge that a fair amount of text 'tweaking is atil happening, but it has been quite some time since anybody raised any significant NPOV concerns. I'll remove the banner if no one objects. Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It SHOULD be removed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Geogratphic or political by nature

Hello all, this article and concept is currently defined as a geographical concept. I would like to dissent on this. It is not a slogan or term used by geographers. It is a term used with a political meaning. The introduction itself largely expose its political nature, which we can at minima define as a slogan refering to an unified political entity in between the Jordan river and the mediterranean sea. This meaning is agreed upon in all cases cited, from moderates progressives, to ethno-nationalists from Israel and from Hamas. I suggested this change but was reverted. Can other editors review this proposal. Yug (talk) 🐲 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yug of course it is not a geographical term, it is a descriptive phrase describing a specific geographical area - all sources describe it as such. The Emerald Isle is not a geographical term, but it is an oft-used way to refer to Ireland. The lead is specific - as are sources - that the slogan describes an area also referred to historically as Palestine or sometimes as Eretz Israel.

Btw just as no sources say the slogan is refering to a unified political entity, similarly none refer to "Reuses by ethno-nationalists factions". The English of both claims is fairly grotesque, the sourcing is non-existent and the "ethno-nationalists factions" are not mentioned anywhere in the article, which the lead is supposed to summarise. This is pure POV WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Also btw, this article is covered by discretionary sanctions, therefore by altering the established text, then later partially reinstating your preferred text after I restored the stable version, you technically broke the WP:1RR rule, as well as breaking WP:BRD. Please get consensus for any substantive changes BEFORE re-instating text, as well of course as providing sources. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The rewording proposed summarized the semantic content of the article into the lead, with words suited to this summarization objective. Calling a duck a duck is nothing fancy. Ex: "From the river to the sea" is mostly used as a political call for unified entity according to the cases cited in this article itself, that is just summarizing the article content. Nationalist entities such as Likud, Hamas, observably have ethnology-nationalist stances, also by this article itself. Those statements are in the article, even it the lead, but with a contortioned wording which is not satisfactory in shape, style, concision. Such summary are nothing new :

• «In 1996, Netanyahu became Prime Minister by using populist right-wing “rhetoric dominated by ethnic nationalism» (European Center for Populism Studies)
• «Hamas is now accepting the two state solution under the condition that they are part of the game, but their focus remains ethno nationalist.» source
• «The conflict lines of the nationalistic struggle between Jews and Arabs were brought into sharp relief, with confrontations between youths from both sides inside the Old City, and people expressing hostile, ethno-nationalist sentiment towards each other.» Times of Israel

I do not see avenue to collaborate on this article at the moment given your high end requirement of the exact expression being used by sources before using it in the lead, despite the definitions of those terms are currently used all across the current article. Yug (talk) 🐲 00:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to WP:SYNTH a novel interpretation. Not everyone using the slogan supports any "unified entity" of any kind. Of course there are all sorts of 'ethno-nationalist' aspects/tensions to the conflict, but leaping from that to an interpretation of the slogan is more 'writing an essay about the conflict' than documenting what has been written about the slogan - the slogan which is the subject of the article. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"History of the phrase" section begins with recent, politically influenced articles and inaccurate citations

> The precise origins of the phrase are disputed.

Demitri Coryton appears to be the editor of an "Education Journal", but I am unable to find this article or available copies of this journal, and Coryton himself does not appear to have any academic background as it relates to this phrase or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The citation of a recent article as the primary source on this statement implies influence by current political events, rather than established scholarship. If support for this can be found in older sources, those should be used. Otherwise, more credible citations should be added or the section should be removed.

> According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase "began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel."

The citation for this section does not contain this direct quote or anything resembling it.

> Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song with the slogan: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.

This does not explain the phrase for which this article exists and its use as a political slogan; additionally the article cites an Arabic bbc report which plays a small excerpt of a video which doesn't represent established written scholarship. There's an obvious bias implication. ObviouslyCorrect (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The points you are making about the "two banks" song and the "boundaries of Eretz Israel" text overlap with issues raised later in the "removal of attributed claims of two distinguished historians" discussion above.Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede items

In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety". According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.' Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean[to whom?] one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".

Issue #1

According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.'

Advocating this be removed. On its own is misleading as to the full character of what the charter expressed, which is more fully outlined in the above sentence (“initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947”) - which is a proper neutral characterization of what is in the charter. Expressing this twice, and including sentiment contained within the charter feels WP:UNDUE.

Issue #2

Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".

While I respect that the writer is a respected academic, a quote casting a general aspersion with no further qualification or detail and has no place in the lede. This article is literally about the diversity of interpretations of the phrase - there is no place for an unqualified quote about a universal sentiment when the article clearly contradicts this. Mistamystery (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Add protected legal status of the phrase in Germany as per court decisions in Cologne and Munster

Please change

"On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned in Bavaria (Germany), and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations. This may result in punishment of up to three years in prison or a fine."[83][84]"

to

On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned by police in Bavaria, Germany, and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations."[83][84] However on November 17, 2023, the Administrative Court of Münster in Bavaria gave pro-Palestinian gatherings interim legal protection overthrowing a police ban. The court ruled that the slogan not punishable in all but exceptional circumstances, because according to the understanding of an unbiased audience it does not objectively have a criminal meaning. On December 1, 2023, the Cologne Administrative Court in North Rhine-Westphalia reiterated the Münster court ruling and overthrew a ban issued by the Bonn Police.

Windsorchair (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No translation was provided for the source, per WP:RSUEC.  Spintendo  04:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Critics say it is a general call to genocide?

Our text says :The slogan's use by such Palestinian militant groups (as Hamas) has led critics to argue that the slogan implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population ie we are saying that critics think that the slogan has become inherently genocidal - which is probably true. The source used (Malik Gdn) simply says that Hamas' use is genocidal: In the hands of Hamas, it is a call for the driving out of all Jews from the region, it doesn't even mention how critics see the slogan. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've altered the cites used to Dawn and AP who both speak of the more general criticism of the slogan as genocidal. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Land of Israel

Is there any valid reason for incuding this religious terminology in the lead without elaborating? It is only know as the "Land of Israel" by those that are religiously affiliated. Also why Holy Land would be unfit. JJNito197 (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Two reasons:

1. Religious as it may be, “Land of Israel” is also a historical regional description. Descriptions of the region on other pages usually include the multiples in the “historically known as or referred to” sections (Palestine, Canaan, holy land, land of israel)

2. The article includes Israeli right claims, which correspond more accordingly than other descriptives. Mistamystery (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Land of Israel and modern day Israel is not synonymous, and the Land of Israel is a vague term in a context where we have to be precise. We need a source that states "Land of Israel" has been the historical name to refer to that region in the English language specifically. "Historically" as in referring to being recorded extensively (and known exclusively) as Palestine (by the majority) over the years, a vaguer definition would include terms like "Syria" or "Southern Levant". "Traditionally" is less precise and more in the realm of FRINGE, given that it depends on what tradition. JJNito197 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Coming in a little too hot on this. Not remotely FRINGE, and to posit as such is a leading assertion on its own.

This article pertains to the territory of the former British Mandate. The official name for the British Mandate in Hebrew was “Palestine (EY)”, meaning “Eretz Yisrael” = Land of Israel.

https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/how-was-israel-once-palestine-new-books-and-old-coins-680467 Mistamystery (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Eretz Yisrael" is not regional descriptor in the English language. Land of Israel would be a translation of this, but as specified, the usage is confined to those who are religiously affilated. Plus the meaning of this term is vague, and can be interpreted as us in Wikivoice legitimising a definition. The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel. The Bible is also where this term originates. We should aim to be as precise as we can. JJNito197 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Land of Israel is not a historical regional description, it has never been a common English term for describing any part of the region. nableezy - 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the former territory of the British mandate of Palestine, which “Land of Israel” appeared on official documentation and currency. I don’t see how that’s not relevant and can’t find a place on this article, especially pertaining to the geographic reference. Mistamystery (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No it did not, an abbreviation for Eretz Yisreal appeared on those documents. Land of Israel has never been a common English name for the region. See the ngram for example. nableezy - 16:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Even the source we use (Times of Israel) says that the area described by the slogan is NOT synonymous with the historical “Land of Israel”: "It is also the heart of the biblical Land of Israel (though the ancient Jewish kingdom there extended further), so no, even ignoring the vagueness and non-standard-English issues, the description is historically inaccurate. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

By this same logic we can not use the word "Palestine" to refer to 5th century BCE when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt. We need to refer to modern Palestine, which the slogan refers to. The term was used widely as a self-identification by Palestinians from the start of the 20th century onwards. In the 20th century the name was used by the British to refer to "Mandatory Palestine," a territory from the former Ottoman Empire which had been divided in the Sykes–Picot Agreement and secured by Britain via the Mandate for Palestine obtained from the League of Nations.Badabara (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The name of the land and the name for the people who lived in it have little connection. The name of the land, as you rightly note is ancient. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the ancient land of Phoenicia extends into Lebanon and Italy. The current sentence "an area historically described as Palestine" presupposes a history that extends hundreds or thousands of years. As it reads now is incorrect. How do you suggest we remedy this? Badabara (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

At the start of 1917 , Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire, following whose defeat in World War 1 the area came under interim government by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. “British Mandate Palestine” included Transjordan, which is east of the Jordan river.

"From the river to the sea" is a modern slogan, so the sentence "an area historically described as Palestine" is misleading. We either need to specify the length of that history, its beginning and end, or leave out the word "historically" all together. Badabara (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Your addition specifically referred to the people, not the land, so it has little bearing on the land. The exact borders of France or Italy may have shifted, but the key definitions haven't. If modern territorial definitions differ significantly from 'historic' or 'ancient' ones, then the difference can be briefly noted. What we are interested in in the lead is defining the area referred to as accurately as practical using accepted geographic terms. Pincrete (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not defending my previous edit. I'm trying to work with you to get to a new edit. The borders "From the River to the sea" (Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River), referred to a land called Palestine only from 1920-1948. That's a 28 year sliver of time. Before that the land called "British Mandate Palestine" included the trans-Jordan, and before that it was all part of the Ottoman Empire.

We should take out the word "historic" in the sentence "an area historically described as Palestine".

OR

We should state something like, "an area historically described as Palestine from 1920-1948"

OR

Come up with a better solution that I'm not proposing to get to a more accurate lead. Badabara (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

a) I suspect there are others that know precise historical/geographical boundaries better than I, so they might be better able to respond … b) Sources defining the area covered by the slogan should be our starting point and they mainly seem quite happy with the use of 'Palestine'. even Times of Israel says "The Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea form the eastern and western boundaries, respectively, of what was the British Mandate of Palestine before 1948" - which is only marginally qualifying the term to refer to a political entity … c) We are linking to Palestine as a geographic region, not to any specific past or present political arrangement, which is apt. So I don't see a problem in present use but if anyone else has a concise, clearer term, I wouldn't object. But it should be concise IMO as the slogan largely defines itself, and we make clear that it encompasses Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Small detail, but "historically described as Palestine from 1920-1948" is very clumsy English (it's either 'historically described' or 'described from/to') and that is referencing a political entity rather than a geographic region. The geographic region is "historically known as Palestine" in English AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See Palestine (region) to understand the geographic region. The 1920-1948 boundary lines are "from the river to the sea". The rest of the 3000 year history of the geographic area, called "Palestine" has no boundary on the Jordan river. The slogan is modern, and not based on historic geological boundaries or historic political boundaries. They are based only on the 1920-1948 boundary lines... which is the modern era.

I've taken out the word "historic". The precise historical/geographical boundaries are not mystery. Badabara (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I did think of suggesting removal of 'historic', but forgot to do so. The need is only for an approximate term to identify where the land lying between the river and the sea is. We aren't conducting treaty negotiations, simply identifying a region of the globe in the simplest way possible. Pincrete (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Haha. Exactly. Pleasure conversing with you. Happy holidays and best wishes in the new year! Badabara (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

taxonomy of international use section

Mistamystery, you reverted my edit removing al-Qaeda as the only non-state among states with the explanation that Section is pertaining to polity or entity. It’s not “international countries”- Pakistan is not appropriate, Bin Laden neither represented Pakistan, nor is it proven he was in Pakistan when he wrote the speech (despite it being recovered in Pakistan). It’s a statement attributed to the founder of an entity - think citing himself directly or the group he was leading is most appropriate.

The parent section is Use internationally—should the taxonomy then not be organized by nations/states? Bin Laden neither represented Pakistan—is the assumption that all other usage in the section is to be considered representative of the nation state under which it is organized? Are professional footballers in the UK to be understood as "representative" of the UK?

Pincrete, you then changed Lebanon to Hezbollah. What are your thoughts on the organization of the section?

With al-Qaeda and Hezbollah at the top of the section, and with the above section "Use by Palestinian militant groups," it elides massive popular/civilian use of the phrase and gives UNDUE weight to use by Islamist militant groups. إيان (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Al-qaeda and hezbollah are at the top of the section because its ordered alphabetically - they have not been given preference or undue weight for any particular reason and obviously this could be shuffled if it were really considered an issue.

2. I don’t take “use internationally” to necessarily imply or necessitate it needing to be derived solely from a representative voice from a government or to strictly be organized by nations/states. Merely appreciable and clear derivation from a place or source in the world.

As Bin Laden was a stateless actor who acted on behalf of the organization he founded (which itself acted upon the international stage), it only seems appropriate to cite its source either from him or the organization itself. To say “Pakistan” not only creates a potentially false inference, we just don’t even know if that’s factual enough to categorize it as such.

I don’t think there’s a problem to have this section be representative of 1) things that have happened clearly within these states, or 2) things that have happened on an official basis or regard to its government or politics. Just as al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan did not represent either country, Hezbollah, while a political party within the government also does not fully represent the government, I’m comfortable (and think its reasonably clear) to make these distinctions. It seems undue and overly complex to have to spin out into sections that delineate what happened governmentally as opposed to within regions, entities, or polities. Mistamystery (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Mistamystery, and was also uncomfortable with crediting bin Laden to Pakistan (is that where the document was found?). A simple, single coherent logic to the sectioning probably isn't possible or necessary. US and UK are various examples of people being censured for use, Iran and Iraq are semi-official statements of policy, Al Quada and Hezbollah are organisations, but again giving statements of policy. We could have multiple (or no) sub-headings, but I don't think it is necessary. An additional matter is that Saddam Hussein's use is a primary source (a newspaper print of his speech), so any interpretation is WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I don’t think the Hussein section provides any form of interpretation, merely a description of the section in which the invocation appears:

We salute the Palestinian people of heroic mujahideen as well as every hero and heroine amongst the champions of self-sacrifice who confront the zionest aggression with their lives and thus foil the wrong ideas of the American administrations which have acted in alliance with their artificial zionist creation in the crimes they perpetrate and the shame they reap. Glorious and sublime are our martyrs in Palestine, Iraq and the nation as a whole. Glorious and sublime are our martyrs in Palestine, Iraq and the nation as a whole. Long live Palestine, free and Arab, from the sea to the river. Long live Great Iraq and its valiant army of Mujahideen.Long live our glorious Arab nation.

Described on the page as:

referred to the Palestinian people and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

Mistamystery (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

HISTORY SECTION

Hello pro editors. I am just a professional historian and an amateur Wikipedia user and am evidently not skilled/qualified enough to make this change myself. I am not taking side on this issue.

But solely in terms of its history, the first iteration I can find of this phrasing is in the Bible: Joshua 23:4 -- "Behold, I have allotted to you as an inheritance for your tribes those nations that remain, along with all the nations that I have already cut off, from the Jordan to the Great Sea in the west."

Again, I'm not taking sides. But it seems this is a much earlier iteration (written sometime between the 7th-5th centuries BCE) of this phrasing than what is currently listed in the History section. I think it might be worth mentioning, no?

There are no pros here, we're all unpaid. You may well be partly right, although that exact text is the modern English Standard Version. The English Standard Version is 2001, rather than BCE C6th, but at least it tends to show that this way of demarcating the broad geographical region is ancient, even if the exact phrase isn't. Unfortunately we can't use it as we never use original research, which here means anything not already printed elsewhere in reliable, verifiable sources. Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Best not to take unsigned IP contributions not couched in the form of an edit request, per WP:ARBECR. Archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Good job all!

Just wanted to say I left a few edits on this page a month or so ago, and since then have come back to check it out. It looks a whole lot better than I remember, very well-written and beginner-friendly. Pats on the back. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

New sources

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/tagged/from-the-river-to-the-sea

This link contains a number of useful pieces written by relevant scholars. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Highly Biased

I find this article to showcase bias. Rather than starting with the meaning(s) that the people chanting it offer, it goes very quickly to the criticisms. What meaning it does cover, starts with the most negative version.

Additionally, it seems to simply miss the way that the slogan is chanted. It's changed by people who see a future for Palestinians of Jewish and Arab and more heritages, living free of ethno nationalism that creates zero sum outlooks. The slogan is about being free, free from oppression and obligation to ethno-nationalist states.

This stands in contrast to the Likud party’s original manifesto in 1977 stated that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”

This is about freedom, not a specific prescription of two or one state "solutions" - it's about being free of ideologies. It's against Zionism.

Here's a decent sources: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean

I think starting off hewing much closer to the people who are chanting it makes much more sense. SubcomandanteOvashinsky (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot look into the minds of those who use the slogan - only chart the history of use and report what is written about chanters and their critics. I don't see the showcase bias you speak of. After describing the are referred to, we say: "In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine and later "Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. By comparison, the 'critics' get little space. The CBC source is a good source, but it devotes a great deal more space to 'critics' than we do and echoes our approach. The Al Jazeera we already use. Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The article title should be 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'.

The article title should be 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', not 'From the river to the sea'. The truncated form is only ever used by opponents of the slogan who seek to caricature and vilify it, and hide the fact that the slogan is a call for freedom, not a call for genocide. MathewMunro (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The slogan has various forms, the opening phrase being the constant, and how the slogan is most commonly referred to. The "will be free" form is vilified as much as the short form I believe. Naming the article with the 'long form' would not I think have any benefits. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like "Palestine will be free" is the primary one? And if we don't do a RM, maybe we can nevertheless mention the whole slogan in the first paragraph? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu usage

• Klee, Miles; Klee, Miles (2024-01-18). "Netanyahu Says 'From the River to the Sea,' a Phrase Zionists Claim is Genocidal". Rolling Stone.

Interesting article here. Can anyone find the original Hebrew transcript so we can verify that the translation is correct? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

For the pedants he technically said ‘west of the Jordan’—which is of course ‘from the river to the sea’. I haven’t seen a transcript but I can find coverage in Hebrew of the speech later when I’m not on my phone. إيان (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently he commonly uses ‘west of the Jordan’ - which describes the same area, but isn't the same slogan. Is the article about the area or the slogan? Pincrete (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The slogan is about the area, so it doesn't matter if it's verbatim or not, but of course there should be RS to make the connection like the one above. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree. We have:

• Palestine (region) - the land in Greek, Latin and Arabic writings
• Land of Israel - the land inhabited by the Tribes of Israel in the Bible
• Promised Land - the land promised to Abraham in the Bible
• Holy Land - describing the holiness of the land to different religions
• Southern Levant and Southern Syria - terms used to describing the area using a wider frame
• From the river to the sea - the land as defined by its geographical features

We include "from the water to the water" so we should include "west of the Jordan" too.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the two are the same, just without mention of the sea. RS have made the connection anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-21/ty-article/israel-based-news-outlet-incorrectly-translates-pms-words-leading-to-media-firestorm/0000018d-2bfa-daf5-a1bf-affa764b0000 Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Context Section?

I think the section titled "Context" could be removed. It only draws from a single source, and seems like is essentially restating the article's thesis, rather than providing empirical information. The list of events also seems designed to force an inference that Israel is single-handedly responsible for all fracturing of the region, which could lead to accusations of pro-Palestinian bias for the page as a whole. Orenstevens (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Please feel free to suggest alternative sources for the context. Also per WP:ARBECR, please try to keep your edit requests straightforward and mainly in the form of Change X to Y rather than making WP:FORUM like statements. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fix inaccurate source use

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from living under Israel.

+

The phrase was popularised in the 1960s among the Palestinian population as a call for freedom from the rule of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.

• Why it should be changed:

The current text says "democratic" Palestinian state, which is not mentioned anywhere in the NPR source.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The NPR source used at the end of the sentence in the article

spintheer (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done After reviewing this source and several in the history section I agree that this claim cannot be verified from current citations. I added your proposed text with slight tweaks. Thanks for catching this. Jamedeus (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the only source, and may not be the best. Here, it says "The slogan has been around for decades among Palestinians and pro-Palestinian campaigners and refers to liberating the territory that exists between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea in historic Palestine … The origins of the phrase date back to the original debate over partition in the 1940s." Another one of the 'explanatory' sources says "What started as a call to end an apartheid-like system in Israel and Palestine, is now conflated with being equal with antisemitism and a call for the destruction of the state of Israel".Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

"Jewish-occupied Palestinian lands" needs to be removed it is an opinionnot fact. it is just called Israel, and it is a leagal country, political opinions and biases have no place in knowledge. 108.7.65.121 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done as phrase not found. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

From "The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety".[8] "

To

The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety, calling for the complete annihilation of the sovereign, legally created nation of Israel and its people.".[8] BrakeYawSelf (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The quoted text is not in the cited source (WP:VERIFY). Jamedeus (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahmad Khalidi - wrong internal link

In the Response to criticism section, I think the wikilink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Khalidi should be removed. It seems clear that the person who is quoted in the NYT article is not the person with a wikipedia page because they don't have the same exact name, they don't hold their PhDs from the same institution and they didn't teach at the same places. The link is very confusing because Ahmed Mubarak Al-Khalidi is a member of the PNA, so suggesting this is him responding to criticism in the NYT makes the response look very biased. Bio for the Oxford researcher: https://www.gcsp.ch/our-experts/dr-ahmad-samih-khalidi . Thank you!

Ab930 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Ab930 (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

+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)

"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)

WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 11:25, 24 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)

It's still explicitly a South Africa / Apartheid term and is non-neutral use. I'd like to see a single neutral use case in practice by RS anywhere. Mistamystery (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Only somebody who has never looked could imagine this was not a commonly used term for the pieces of the Palestinian territories that the Palestinians have been left with. Try, for example, Chaichian, Mohammed (2014-01-01). "Bantustans, Maquiladoras, and the Separation Barrier Israeli Style". Empires and Walls: Globalization, Migration, and Colonial Domination. BRILL. pp. 271–319. doi:10.1163/9789004260665_011. ISBN 978-90-04-23603-5.. Or Baconi, Tareq (August 3, 2022). "What Apartheid Means for Israel". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved April 24, 2024. nableezy - 22:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I said where to look, didn't bother obviously. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 24 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)

There is a non-monolithic pro-Palestinian POV on this conflict. And Colla is definitely subscribing to some version of it. It would be ridiculous to claim otherwise. Other than that you are bursting through an open door. I've already stated several time that I'm going to rectify the current violation of NPOV by adding more opinions to the Context section. I think this discussion has run its course. Vegan416 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Glad youve dropped "Palestinian POV" at least. nableezy - 11:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

nit-picking Vegan416 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Who said spokesman? The POV is clearly from one side of the conversation, and does not remotely attempt to provide general "context" to the general use of the phrase. The section only appears to have been labeled "context" to justify inclusion of the quote (which uses the term context). The section does not provide general context (the history section does)...it just parrots a Colla quote.

Section should be removed (in months, no one else saw fit to add anyone else's "contextual" observations) and appropriate Colla opinion can be moved down to the History of the phrase section. Mistamystery (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Which part of the quote do you think is actually controversial? As far as I can see it's just basic facts about why Palestinians are not free and why the phrase is popular in the first place 20WattSphere (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought the discussion has run its course. But your question reveals that you still don't understand the basics of the dispute. So, here are some of the controversial things in Colla's quote:

1. You say that Colla' quote explains why the Palestinians are not free and therefore have adopted this phrase. But in fact many people think that Colla is getting the causality backwards, and the main reason that the Palestinians are not free is because they believe in this phrase. They are not free because right from the beginning they refused to accept that there is another nation that also has legitimate claims on this land, and refused, and still refuse, to compromise with it. From the beginning the Palestinians wanted everything from the river to the sea, and that's why they still have almost nothing. See here for example. https://salmagundi.skidmore.edu/articles/501-from-the-river-to-the-sea
2. Colla also neglects to mention that the Palestinians didn’t have freedom even before 1967 war. Prior to 1967 the West Banka and Gaza were not independent but rather under Jordanian and Egyptian rule. This is an undisputed fact.
3. Colla also implies that the Oslo Accords made the status of Palestinian independence worse by breaking it into enclaves, whereas many think that actually the opposite is true. The amount of self-government the Palestinian in the West Bank got as a result of the Oslo Accords, while limited, is still larger than anything they had before ever in history, under Israel, Jordan, the British mandate or the Ottoman Empire. And they could have much more independence if they accepted the Israeli offers in 1999.

That’s why this context requires fixing to give a more balanced presentation. And I hope to do it today or tomorrow. Vegan416 (talk) 10:07, 25 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)

You have misunderstood WP:NPOV. Neutrality is about the POV of the article, not the sources. 20WattSphere (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Removal of Susie Linfield opinion from context

@Selfstudier I strongly object to your editions:

1. There is no ground to remove Susie Linfield's opinion. Nothing here says that this section should contain only "experts in the subject matter". And what is exactly the subject matter anyway?

2. I think that we must include an explicit mention that Cola's statements here appeared in an opinion piece in a (not so) RS. It is required by WP:RSOpinion to make clear that this is only his political opinion and not a result of a research given in an academic publication.

Vegan416 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As it says in her article, she is not a historian, unlike Colla, who is a Middle East scholar and we still make clear that it is his opinion by attributing him rather than stating it in Wikivoice as fact. In other words, he could write it on toilet paper and it would still be a valid opinion.

An opinion from someone who is not a subject matter expert may be due if similar opinions are expressed by others. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Colla is not a historian either. According to his Wikipedia article he is specializing in Arabic literature and culture. And you still didn't make clear what is the subject matter of this section. History? Literature? Culture? The Arab Israeli conflict? Vegan416 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Elliott Colla is an American scholar of the Middle East... Line 1 of Colla article.

Susie Linfield is a social and cultural theorist... Line 1 of Linfield article.

OK, these things are somewhat relative but there is no possible parity for the subject matter between these two. So I would argue that it is undue unless there are other similar opinions that would add weight. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you. As this is a political, and not a scientific, issue, I don't think that expertise in subject matter is relevant here, plus the subject matter is no well defined, as you yourself wasn't able to exactly define what it is despite my repeated questions. However, if you are asking me to add more scholars who have similar opinions to Linfield, I would be happy to oblige, and it would probably be easier than making you change your mind... I have to make a break for a while now, but in a day or two I'll do as you recommended... over and out. Vegan416 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems you have a supporting editor, who either did not see, or did not see fit to join, this discussion. I will wait a bit then we will set up the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I restored Linfield beause the edit summary excising her suggests the editor did not understand Linfield's point which is critical of Palestinians, and, as paraphrased, certainly does not represent one side alone. I'm not particularly impressed by the source itsaelf, but one should not remove information one has not understood.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I support removing it - the quote wasn't about the context of the phrase, it was an assessment of its strategic value. I'd support keeping the quote but moving it to a more relevant section. 20WattSphere (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think her opinion should be placed in the "Criticism" section. Because it is not historical context. I'll do that later if there are no objections. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 02:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)