Talk:From the river to the sea

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)