Talk:From the river to the sea

Wrong link

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

I cannot find any source of Mr. Kelley saying this quote besides things quoting this article. This claim should really be removed if no source exists. Jumper4677 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I found it (its noted here: https://rsaa.org.uk/blog/from-the-river-to-the-sea/), but its NOT that in that link, as it is in this article. Using Wikipedia Library, its on page 78 (the phrase is noted on the previous page), which says:

First, the odious phrase in question began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel. The Likud Party’s founding charter reinforces this vision in its statement that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Indeed, as Seraj Assi wryly observed in a comment on Hill’s firing, “In a self-fulfilling prophecy, and thanks to Israel’s occupation and rapid expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ has become a reality on the ground. The tragedy is that, from the river to the sea, only one people is free.

So the citation of Mr. Kelley in the second sentence of the "History of the phrase" section should be changed to the following (remove the brackets) --> [<]ref>Kelley, Robin D.G (Summer 2019). "From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top: Solidarity as Worldmaking". Journal of Palestine Studies. 48 (2): 78. Retrieved April 29, 2024.[<]/ref> Historyday01 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have changed the citation so the quote is properly cited in the main article. I thought posting it here would have encouraged someone else to make the change, but since that has not happened, I decided to boldly make the change myself.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 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)

"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)

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)

Possible OR

Unfortunately, I suspect this edit, which includes what is presumably an objectively and observably true fact about the world, does not comply with the original research policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, looks like synth, can be restored with a quote from a source actually saying that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is OR. OR are claims "for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". This is clearly not the case here, for I have brought 3 published sources from the early 1970s that claim that the phrase "From the River to the Seas" was used then in the context of the "liberation of Palestine".

These sources prove the claim that the phrase appeared at least as early as the 1970s in two ways:

1. As primary sources testifying about themselves. The phrase appears in these sources, and they are from the early 1970s. So it an immediate and irrefutable logical deduction that this phrase appeared at least as early as the early 1970s. In this respect it doesn't even matter if these sources are reliable.
2. As secondary sources testifying that this phrase was used by others. The CIA source testifies that this phrase was used in Egyptian radio. The Lebanese scholarly source testifies that this phrase was used by some Arab delegation that negotiated with USSR. And the British journal about the Middle East, testifies that this is an existing slogan that "entailed the elimination of the Zionist structure". Admittedly I don't know much about the reliability status of the two last sources (though I have no special reason to suspect them of being unreliable), but I think the CIA can definitely be a reliable source for transcribing and translating public Egyptian radio programs.

Vegan416 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OR is drawing a conclusion from multiple sources when said conclusion is present in none of them.

Which of the three sources says "The phrase appeared in English sources (that translated it from Arab sources) at least as early as 1970." ? Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately Vegan416, I think it is the case here. This seems clear if you ask the question, who is the person that observed the fact that "The phrase appeared in English sources (that translated it from Arab sources) at least as early as 1970." Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So the objection is to the word "English"? How then about changing it to "The phrase was publicly used in Arabic at least as early as 1970". Vegan416 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please answer the question I asked. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The CIA source says that the phrase appeared in the Egyptian broadcast. And the Lebanese source says that the phrase was used by an Arab delegation. Vegan416 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The specific words are not the problem. The problem is the observer. The question can also be stated as 'who is the person that observed the fact that "X is the case"?' The answer to that question is inconsistent with WP:OR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The person who observed that the phrase was used then are the CIA and the Lebanese source and the British journal. Vegan416 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The conclusion "The phrase appeared in English sources (that translated it from Arab sources) at least as early as 1970." was drawn by yourself. It is not in any of the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a conclusion. This is a summary of the facts that are mentioned in the sources. If you have a problem with a summary then I can expand the sentence... Vegan416 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. What you can do is report what each source said.

After that, we will consider whether what each source said is WP:DUE, likely not. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When the subject in this section in the history of the phrase than obviously the first known proven appearances of the exact phrase are definitely WP:DUE. So I'll rephrase the sentence at length as you suggest. Vegan416 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that. I repeat, you can report what each source said, not your version of what they said. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you find these arguments unconvincing/puzzling (and I don't blame you because a true observable fact is a true observable fact) you can use the WP:ORN. The Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_mere_observation_original_research? discussion may interest you. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I read that discussion now. Interesting, but I don't see how its relevant here. Unlike the questioner there I actually have published sources to support my edit. You don't have to travel to some godforsaken English village to verify my facts by observing the query. You just have to click on the links to Google Books that I put in the footnotes.

Anyway following my discussion with SelfStudier here is the new version I suggest:

In 1970 the phrase "From the River to the Sea" appeared in a discussion in Egyptian radio in which it was said that the Palestinian resistance, on its own, will not be able to achieve its goal of fully liberating Palestine from "the river to the sea", and it will require the help of the Arab states and particularly Egypt. [and here comes the ref to the CIA source] Vegan416 (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said it? (they are the source, the CIA is the publisher). Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You mean who said it on the Egyptian program? Vegan416 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I see the following sentence in the source

"Can the Palestinian resistance lead a popular resistance war which will end with the full liberation of the land from the river to the sea?"

Who asked this question? Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it matters that much, but since you asked I looked up, and by scrolling one page up in the CIA book you can see that the speaker is Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, a very prominent figure in the Arab world on those days. So here is the 4th revision:

In 1970 the phrase "From the River to the Sea" was used by Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in his show on Egyptian radio. He said that the Palestinian resistance, on its own, will not be able to achieve its goal of fully liberating Palestine from "the river to the sea", and it will require the help of the Arab states and particularly Egypt. [and here comes the ref to the CIA book] Vegan416 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, to be more precise upon more thorough reading of all sources, a 5th revision:

In August 1970 the phrase "From the River to the Sea" was used by Egyptian Information Minister at that time, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, in an article he wrote that was read on Egyptian radio. He said there that the Palestinian resistance, on its own, will not be able to achieve its goal of fully liberating Palestine from "the river to the sea", and it will require the help of the Arab states and particularly Egypt. [and here comes the ref to the CIA book] Vegan416 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he asked the question and then gave the answer himself.

In 1970 Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in his show on Egyptian radio, posed the question ""Can the Palestinian resistance lead a popular resistance war which will end with the full liberation of the land from the river to the sea?" and answered it in the negative.

Now the origins of the phrase is the relevant context, right? And Palestinian usage in particular. So why is this WP:DUE in that context? Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read my new comment. You are not up to date. Vegan416 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your first question, but as for the second question the answer is obvious. In a section about the history of a phrase it is obviously important to mention the first known documented example of the appearance of this phrase and as far as we know now it seems to be that. No earlier example is given in the article so far. Of course if someone will find an earlier source we will replace that with that. Also add that it was said by an important figure to millions of listeners, and I fail to understand how can be here any doubt as to it being WP:DUE. Vegan416 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The first question pertains to where you previously added this material, in the article section 'History of the phrase'. If you look at that section it discusses the origins of the phrase and then usage of the phrase, particularly by Palestinians.

So why is some random usage of the phrase by an Egyptian commentator relevant to that?

No earlier example is given in the article so far. That's false. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you show me an earlier example of this phrase in Arab sources in the article? All we have is the claim of Kelley that is was used in the 60s. But he doesn't provide any documented example.

PS to describe Heikal as a mere "commentator" shows your deep lack of knowledge of the subject matter. He was much much more than that, and as I mentioned when he said that he was in fact the Information Minister of Egypt. Vegan416 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Arab sources? The article discusses Palestinian usage. The first sentence says "The precise origins of the phrase are disputed" But no, editor Vegan 416 insists that the phrase originated in 1970 on an Egyptian radio show. Wow, why doesn't anyone else know that? Has anyone reported that? At all? Anywhere? Besides the CIA.

If you can provide a bona fide historian or otherwise qualified commentator saying that this is the first (or even an early example) of usage of the phrase, we will be good to go. Egyptian radio commentators tossing the phrase about in a conversation with themselves don't count. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are straw-manning again. I never said that "the phrase originated in 1970 on an Egyptian radio show", or anything remotely close to it. And that's obviously not true. I only said that this is the earliest documented appearance of the phrase in Arab sources that had been suggested in the article so far. And you have not able to disprove that. Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In a section about the history of a phrase it is obviously important to mention the first known documented example of the appearance of this phrase and as far as we know now it seems to be that <- What you said. Doesn't say Arab sources either. Documented example is a bit rich as well, it's a CIA translation (presumably) of part of a radio show in Egypt.

About all we can say here is that an Egyptian (OK, a notable Egyptian but that's not really relevant) said "from the river to the sea" according to a CIA translation of said Egyptians discourse with himself on a Cairo radio show in 1970.

To which my personal reaction is "Yea, and?"

What happened to the other two references you were proposing? Are they not early examples of the phrase being used? Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone with any understanding of historical research knows there is a huge difference between "first known documented appearance of X", and the "origin of X". We can say that in 99.9% of cases the "first known documented appearance of X" is NOT the "origin of X", for the simple reason that only a fraction of what is said is documented, and only a fraction of what is documented survives for posterity and is discovered by historical research. That said there is still importance in noting what the "first known documented appearance of X" is, because it gives us a verified upper limit on how late can the "origin of X" be. An upper limit that can of course move backwards with further research.

And I'll come to the other examples later. In nay case this one from 1970 is the earliest among them. Vegan416 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

your deep lack of knowledge of the subject matter and and Anyone with any understanding of historical research.. You can keep trying to throw shade as long as you like, I have a thick skin.

Better to stick to the point though. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both claims were true though :-) And that was the point: while in 99.9% of cases "the first known documented appearance of X" is NOT the "the origin of X", it is still important to note the "the first known documented appearance of X" because it establishes an upper chronological limit on "the origin of X". Vegan416 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So one of them is a discussion between an Arab delegation and the Soviets in relation to Res 242 "there must be war for liberation of the land from river to the sea". Of course, Res 242 doesn't actually mention the Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. The Likud are not Palestinians either and yet their version of "from the river to the sea" is mentioned in this section. Why the Likud version is mentioned and the "Egyptian" (earlier) version not? Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Because Israeli Palestinian is the main context here. Not Arab Israeli, although that might well have been the case back in the early post 67 era. I'm not averse to investigating the AI connection to the phrase back then but I would like proper sourcing not snippets from here and there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The source of the Heikal quote is not a sniped but a full open access document (the CIA as a gov agency doesn't keep copyrights). And the source itself indicates a strong connection between AI and PI. The speaker/writer is Egyptian but he ascribes the goal of "liberation from the river to the sea" to the "Palestinian resistance", and says that they won't be able to achieve that goal without the help of the Arab states. Vegan416 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes but back then everyone was treating the Palestinians as second class citizens (some still are). Their opinion didn't count for much, they were a touchstone for the other players. So the Arab motivations behind the phrase, assuming it wasn't just rhetorical flourish, were likely not the same as those of the Palestinians. It's hard to say without scholarly commentary.

The CIA (read US government) source is just a bunch of transcripts (possibly mistranslated) and there is zero commentary being made there by them or anyone else (ie its a primary source, of the type that would get interpreted by scholars) so not much use. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There is really no reason to suspect mistranslation here. And the way the Palestinians were treated then or now is not relevant to the discussion of the history of the phrase. If it is fit to include the Likud version of the phrase I see no reason not to include the earliest (known to us) documented Arab version, for whatever motivation it was said. Vegan416 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't suspect it, I said it is possible. And even if you don't suspect it, it remains possible.

Anyway, we are now going in circles so suggest we wait and see what others have to say about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you are getting this trot from now https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56356/is-from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-will-be-free-a-call-for-genocide Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We need a source saying when it was first documented. We can't deduce it from OR. Then the only phrase we could even theoretically use in that case would be: earliest documented use that could be found, according to the original research of Wikipedia editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

But I didn't propose to write in the article that it is the first documented mention of the phrase. On the contrary, my version in the deleted edit was that it appeared "at least as early as 1970" which explicitly distances the claim from saying that this is the first use or even the first documented use. And I was wise to do so, because now I found an earlier source in Arabic, in a book by Gaddafi from 1969. Here is the link

My Arabic is very very poor, but between it and Google translate it seems to me it says something like "when the Israeli occupation of Palestine from the river to the sea will end then a Palestinian state will be established". From your name I guess you are more fluent than me, so maybe you can translate it for us more accurately. Vegan416 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Gaddafi refloats one-state idea after Gaza war

"Gaddafi repeatedly called for Israel's Jews to be driven into the sea in the 1970s and 1980s when he was a champion of Arab nationalist positions opposing U.S. and Israeli policies."

So that's an AI position. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In the source I gave here he said that the Israeli occupation has to end from the river to the sea so a Palestinian state can be established. So this is an AIP position. Vegan416 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, I am still looking for a Palestinian saying it then, Arafat say (Egyptian born, I know) Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said before the Likud wasn't a Palestinian either Vegan416 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed that. Here is an apparent ref to Palestinian usage in 1964 (so pre 67)

Upon its creation by diaspora Palestinians in 1964 under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the PLO called for the establishment of a single state that extend from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to encompass its historic territories. Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this is kind of a vague statement without any citation (similar to Kelley claims). Please understand, I definitely agree that the PLO charter from 1964 for example is certainly written in the spirit of the slogan. But the actual literal words "from the river to sea" do not appear there (as Colla correctly says). But here is another Palestinian citation where the words do appear. A 1971 book by Mahmoud Darwish the famous Palestinian poet. It seems to say something like "Palestine is occupied from the river to the sea, and from the mountain to the desert". Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What we need and do not have is interpretation of the words, in whatever form they might occur. Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What we need is a better translation than mine. But I don't understand what kind of interpretation you think is needed. Vegan416 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I have said several times already, some sort of scholarly authority commenting on the usage. We have Colla doing so and while it would be nice if he would have provided a source, it is not necessary, he is qualified to say it.

We can find, I should think literally hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of examples of usage, all of which are useless without interpretation (I suppose one could make a list article containing all of them, that's legitimate. Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

<- Vegan416, the problem is statements like "as far as we know now it seems to be that". Wikipedia articles are not meant to reflect our knowledge. We are not sources. Having said that (and this is why I am somewhat sympathetic to your position), the Brick article includes the following image and caption, which does not appear to have been challenged as original research. Is that a single brick? Who says it is a single brick?

A single brick.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an artistic piece of lego. Or a pharmaceutical. Or a thing for screwing into something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, that's an extruded brick. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is quite hard to resist the urge to change the caption to "A thing for screwing into something.". Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2024

[Many Palestinian activists have called it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it has been "a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.]

It makes zero sense to say "for many Palestinians" the phrase means one thing and then say "for Jews" it is something else. This phrasing implies Jews are a monolith. This is also a dangling quote. Who said the words "clear demand for Israel's destruction?' It is not Jews, it is the author of an AP article. It is not hard to find examples of Jews who disagree with the author:

https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/07/wire-statue-of-liberty/

The quote is an individual's assessment of what Jews broadly believe. This is not a fact like the number of days in December, so there needs to be additional context added about the claim such as information about the author or where the claim it was made. TexasTyrant (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I added the word "most" before "Jews" Vegan416 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

On completion of an edit request, mark the request as answered. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Maha Nassar point

@إيان please explain why you removed Maha Nassar opinion from the Context section? Why do you think it is WP:UNDUE? Vegan416 (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that being returned, she appears qualified to give that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it's cherry-picked POV-pushing. What the Forward source says is:

And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Jordanian and Egyptian rule respectively, faced authoritarian crackdowns that prevented them from being able to fully express their political views.

This is not explicitly about the context of the phrase and it should not be given undue weight. إيان (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Colla is wrong is implying that the phrase "from the river to the sea" doesn't appear in 1970s

The current version of the article says "Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s". His exact words in his opinion piece in Mondoweiss are: "The Palestinian revolutionary media of the 60s and 70s is replete with rich and pithy political slogans—but in those sources, I have yet to encounter the phrase “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” or “min al-mayyeh li-mayyeh.”

However in fact the phrase can be easily found in Palestinian literature from the 1970s. Even a simple google books search can come up with several results from the 1970, both in general Arab literature (as I have shown in another discussion on this page) and also specifically in Palestinian literature. I had already shown in the other discussion an appearance of “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” in a book by Mahmoud Darwish from 1971. And here is another source from 1970:

A book called مناقشات حول الثورة الفلسطينية (Discussions about the Palestinian revolution) by Nājī ʻAllūsh (a Fatah member) brings in p. 105 an editorial from "the special bulletin Fatah issued on February 16, 1970". In which the following sentence appears:

وجهة نظر الثورة الفلسطينية بكافة فصاثللها التي تتمد حرب الشعب الطويلة لمدى كطريقة لتحرير فلسطين من النهر الى آلبحر

Google translation: "The point of view of the Palestinian revolution with all its branches that extends a long-term people's war as a way to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea." (Fluent Arab speakers among the editors can supply a more accurate translation and context, but in any case there is absolutely no doubt that “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” appears here in the context of Palestinian liberation).

In google books there is only snippet view of this book, but you can download the full book for free here.

How do we fix this misleading information from Colla? There is no point in leaving these words of Colla when this phrase can actually easily be found in Palestinian literature from the 1970s. Vegan416 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Also of course I think this Palestinian source from 1970 should be mentioned in the History section... Vegan416 (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

And here are 3 more sources from 1969: 1 2 3 in which “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” appears in the context of Palestine. Though I don't have time to explore if these are General Arabic sources or Palestinian sources, or how exactly they use the phrase. I'll leave this to others... Vegan416 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does have Kelley saying that the phrase was adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization in the mid-1960s which would tally with the AJ ref I gave up above. Remember we are concerned with the origin of the phrase, not mere examples of the phrase and it is also probable that the precise meaning given to it has varied with time and the context. Colley says "not encountered in Palestinian revolutionary media" so we can't just say that's wrong because you found some examples in books. Colley also says ""it is unclear when and where the slogan "from the river to the sea," first emerged within Palestinian protest culture". Have you found any examples in "Palestinian revolutionary media"? (whatever that actually means) Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

For heavens sake. You are continually shifting the goal posts. This 1970 book I found is clearly part of the "Palestinian revolutionary media" (whatever that means). Its title is Discussions about the Palestinian revolution", and the sentence I quoted says: "The point of view of the Palestinian revolution with all its branches that extends a long-term people's war as a way to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea". Also note this quote is from a bulletin of the Fatah, and so is the author. If a source from the Fatah is not good enough, what is??? Vegan416 (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been consistent since the beginning of this entirely unnecessary conversation that mere examples will not suffice (as well as it being OR). We have two sources, both saying that the origins of the phrase are unclear and we can date usage (at least) to 1964. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The sentence "In November 2023, Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s " clearly needs to be removed. You can look at it in either of two ways: (1) if "Palestinian revolutionary media" doesn't include the 1970 book I found then it has some weirdly specific and unclear meaning, and then it is completely uninteresting and misleading. For what difference does it make even if it doesn't appear in these mysterious "Palestinian revolutionary media", if it appears in a more general Palestinian literature??? (2) if "Palestinian revolutionary media" does include the 1970 book I found then all this sentence of Colla attests to is that his research was sloppy. Either way it should be removed.

To defend Colla from the accusation of "sloppy research" I must add that he himself doesn't to take this sentence of his too seriously. He didn't publish it in a peer-review article but rather in an opinion piece in some controversial web site. And he also qualifies his words with "I have yet to encounter" and "More research needs to be done". Well, we did the research and encountered this phrase for him... But while this point can save his face from accusation of sloppy research it is in itself another good argument why this sentence should be removed. Vegan416 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, even if you succeed (and so far, you have not) in demonstrating that Colla is wrong on this one point, that will not disqualify him as a source and all the other points in the article will not change, the lead will remain the same, so I really have no idea what it is you are actually trying to achieve here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was very explicit about what I want to achieve: Removing the sentence "In November 2023, Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s". And I have already proven that this sentence is either wrong or irrelevant and misleading. Vegan416 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

He says he didn't encounter it, and that's what we say, attributed to him, are you calling him a liar? Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are strawmanning again. I said explicitly what are the options: either he is wrong, that is not lying but making a sloppy research, or he limited his search on purpose to some weirdly specific and unclear subset of Palestinian literature in which case his results are completely uninteresting and also somwhat misleading when discussing the entire history of the phrase. Vegan416 (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The thing to do, as always in these cases, is to add reliable sources saying something different (not your OR). Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)