Jump to content

Talk:From the river to the sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Windsorchair (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 21 December 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with keeping Kelley, it's a good source - DFlhb (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But nothing in our text is about the slogan! Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Easily remedied at the expense of length. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dovidroth: has changed sfns and reintroduced the harv errors. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's given too much weight in that section. And I agree with @Mistamystery 's assesment as well as the her/his/they/xe concern that the article's scope is expanding again without due discussion. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed if we expand the scope of the articles we'll have to include other similar calls that are interpreted as refering to destroying Israel... I'm not sure we want to over bloat the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s bothersome to me that there is this much pull to keep the Kelley quote in here when clearly there should be better sources available. His reputablity is secondary to the basic fact that he doesn’t actually provide the info the section is demanding - which is date of use. I really encourage everyone/anyone to please find better sourcing…we should not be debating such a weak source in this regard. Mistamystery (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it may bother you, a journal article is not a weak source. The precise date that some particular individual or individuals may have used the phrase is not relevant, it is implied from the text that it subsequently made its way into the Likud Charter, which is relevant. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a weak source because of the author (or it being published in a journal). It’s a weak source because it is being used to make a historical point without actually providing a date. Mistamystery (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mistamystery, there is wide disagreement to your claim that Kelley source is weak. Your primary argument is your claim that it is "in essence an opinion piece". Yet it is a reputable scholar in a peer-reviewed reputable journal. And most importantly, you have not provided any better sources.
I also note that you are not holding that same lens up to the sources that you appear to agree with - every single opposing claim that the slogan has negative connotations is "in essence an opinion piece" because there remains no hard evidence for such claims.
Until a scholar publishes a detailed forensic analysis on this subject, which - given this year's out-of-the-blue controversy on this topic after half a century of usage - might happen in the next year or two, we have to make do with the best available. And, like it or not, this remains one of those. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again:
Does the Bartov source specifically use “from the river to the sea”?
Also - did the Jabotinski movement specifically use this phrase as well?
I’m confused. Is this page about claims and desires regarding the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, or is it about the specific use of the phrase? Why was that paragraph restored if it does not use the phrase? Mistamystery (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re Bartov, this was already answered above , he spoke in a segment "From the river to the sea,’ a slogan that has stirred controversy in Europe and Britain; what’s the history of this slogan?" so unless there is some mistranslation or something, that makes it relevant to the history. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should be a page “history of competing territorial claims in British Palestine” because that would solve this matter much easier.
I’ve moved the Bartov citation to the context section, as - again - there is no cited usage of this particular phrase by any of the parties referred to (regardless of what the name of the BBC piece is). Mistamystery (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that if Bartov neither uses the phrase nor says anything about the phrase in our text, then it - almost by definition - off-topic regardless of what the name of the BBC piece is. The BBC piece may be mainly about the slogan, but our Bartov text isn't at all about it. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is so difficult about this source? It's explicitly about the phrase's history. If you don't understand Arabic you have to ask for help instead of dismissing or misrepresenting the source. Bartov speaks after the host introduces him:
الدكتور الإسرائيلي الأمريكي عمر بارتون الأستاذ المختص في الهولوكوست والتطهير العرقي في جامعة براون في الولايات المتحدة لم يختلف مع رأي الدكتورة فرسخ في تاريخ الشعار لدى الفلسطينيين ولكنه أوضح أصلا آخرا لنفس الشعار لدى الإسرائيليين يرجع إلى الحركة التصحيحية الصهيونية أي قبل قيام دولة إسرائيل في عام 1948.
إيان (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google says that translates to:
"Israeli-American Dr. Omar Barton, a professor specializing in the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing at Brown University in the United States, did not disagree with Dr.Farsakh’s opinion regarding the history of the slogan among the Palestinians, but he explained another origin for the same slogan among the Israelis, dating back to the corrective Zionist movement, that is, before the establishment of the State of Israel in the year 1948"
Right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "corrective" is revisionist? Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. إيان (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So use the quote. I don't see why the above quote is being used instead of some secondhand depiction of some song. Mistamystery (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was pondering how to say roughly the same thing as Mistamystery, but less directly. " Israeli-American professor Omar Barton gives another origin for the slogan among the Israelis, dating back to the early(?) Zionist movement, before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948" Does the song fit into that narrative?
The present text about the song establishes no relationship to the slogan. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As is apparent upon examination of the source, the quote I provided is from the presenter introducing the historian in Arabic. Bartov speaks in English of the Revisionist Zionist song containing the slogan "this bank is ours and the other one too" (in Hebrew: שׁתֵּי גָדוֹת לַיַּרדֵּן: זוֹ שֶׁלָּנוּ – זוֹ גַם-כֵּן!) as an origin of 'from the river to the sea' discourse among Zionists. إيان (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear to tie in with Kelley reference to a Zionist origin. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's where I originally had the text, in the history section. The source doesn't support its placement in the context section. إيان (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the proximity, but "appears to" does not mean confirms. Again this article is not about political claims but a phrase, its history, and usage. Run an RFC if you think it should change, but otherwise general discussion regarding territorial claims and ambitions belong on other pages. Mistamystery (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why should distinguished historian Omer Bartov's expert testimony on the history of 'from the river to the sea' to the BBC, a reputable news source, in a segment explicitly about the phrase's history, not appear—attributed to said historian—in the history section of the article? What is the issue Mistamystery and Pincrete are seeing? What issue would an RFC decide?
Is it that Bartov doesn't parse out the sequence of words 'from the river to the sea' verbatim? This article isn't about a prescribed sequence of words—it's about reference to territory with regard to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea—in various linguistic formulations, as min an-nahr 'ilā l-baḥr and min al-mayyeh lil-mayyeh in Arabic, as 'from the river to the sea' in English, etc.; in various textual formulations, in graffiti, in protest chants, in formal public addresses, in official political messaging, etc.—in conjunction with a political idea expressed or implied with regard to that territory.
The relationship, if it needs to be spelled out, is describing territory with relation to the Jordan River in conjunction with a political idea about that territory. إيان (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the text about the song with prose describing what was said about the phrase per the translation above and where it was said, then I see no problem with inclusion or having the two sources together. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I'm not clear exactly what you're suggesting.
If you're referring to the Arabic text I put above, it's what the BBC journalist said, not Bartov. If you're referring to the Hebrew lyrics, I provided just for the sake of this discussion. Bartov doesn't give the Hebrew; he gives an English translation.
Could you propose text for our article? إيان (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That text is a good source for what Bartov said, so that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an interview with Bartov here in English, (about 10.50 mins in). He again mentions the 'two banks' song, when discussing the chant, but apart from the song and the chant both being 'territorial' in character, he doesn't link the two in any substantive way - neither being the precursor nor referring to the same territory. They are both 'territorial' in character and refer to the Jordan, that appears to be the only connection. I can't help but feel that the 'two banks' song is off-topic here. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essential: the MEANING, not abstract categories of users

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

I think it is more complicated than that. The speaker, the context, the audience all matter. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not. People might often be functionally illiterate nowadays, but they know what they're saying, if it's in their mother tongue. A Palestinian who says "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free/Arab/Muslim", he knows what he means, and so do you, and so do I, and so does anyone who cares to think. If they say "Palestinians shall be free" - it can mean quite a different thing. Might, and that's good enough to move it out of the "genocidal" and into the "civil rights" or "equivocal" category.
When a literate Western person like Mr Hill says "And that is a free Palestine, from the river to the sea", he knows exactly what he means. No Israel, and damn the cost, who cares. I don't need "context", and neither does anyone. And if anyone had any doubts, he goes on to insult everyone with an IQ higher than the room temperature by tweeting "You say "River to the Sea" is "universally" understood to mean the destruction of the Jewish State? On what basis do you make this claim? Did it signify destruction when it was the slogan of the Likud Party? Or when currently used by the Israeli Right?" Of course it means destruction. But of the other side, and of its aspirations. We may go into comparing the ways and means - opressive occupation and settler fanaticism-driven aggression on one side, and butchery Timur Lenk-style on the other, with cutting open wombs and all the rest, plus suicide bombings as a sign of modernisation. And throw in the bombing of Gaza, for sure, and test it against the laws of war. But that has no bearing: the topic here is a slogan, with a clear message. Every accused will bring character witnesses, claim mitigating circumstances, and so on: what you call context and complexity. But any juror or judge has his own head to look at the facts and give a verdict. And a spade remains a spade. Arminden (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is unhelpful. And wrong. Unless you find a user of the phrase who proudly says that it means what you say, then this is just imagination.
Anyway, your logic is flawed. Israel exists as a strong and successful country. But, ALSO, the existence of a nation state does not change the fact that the underlying region between the river and the sea remains Palestine today, just as it remains the Holy Land today. It is just a name, one of a few for the same place. Saying the area will be free, and using the historical regional name, means nothing more than the whole area will be free where freedom is denied. The strength of feeling by some against this slogan is really against the term Palestine vis a vis the term Israel. It is just a name game. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could use the same logic for the slogan "America first". Despite its historic use by the KKK, you might argue simply it's a statement that American values are important to the American people.
... now put context, history, and usage into the mix and bingo! We have a statement that is divisive and tribal.
There is no Tabula rasa. You can not take the word "Palestine" and the word "free" in a slogan used by undeniable terrorist organizations that wish to eradicate all Jews from the region and claim such simple meanings as "geographic location" and "freedom". It doesn't work that way. Badabara (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arminden and Badabara, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. إيان (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article! Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now isn't this an incredibly aggressive comment, as well as a violation of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning. Sorry :). Homerethegreat (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly directed at Arminden and Badabara, but the main purpose of the talk page isn't to argue our own views on the topic, rather to discuss the article and how to improve it. Talk pages (especially on contentious topics like Is-Pal) easily get bogged down in each of us offering our opinions! Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

Malik, (Guardian) says "Originally a call for a secular state in historic Palestine … it soon became a sectarian slogan, deeply inflected by antisemitism. In the hands of Hamas, it is a call for the driving out of all Jews from the region; at best, a demand for ethnic cleansing, at worst for genocide." So he is at least saying that any antisemitism is most extreme/explicit in the Hamas use. Similarly the Hamas use is the one most often cited by those who are offended by the use of the slogan (including the Forward piece about Marc Lamont Hill) .
While it is obviously very important that Hamas' use is recorded, I don't think it matters much either way whether the 'international scrutiny' has increased since the Hamas charter, which I assume is what you are questioning. Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asking regarding if there is a source that supports that international criticism increased after Hamas usage. Otherwise it should just be the phrase has been criticized Homerethegreat (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Homerethegreat. I'm not seeing how the source posted by Pincrete supports the text in the article.Stix1776 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim it did support the specific text. The Hamas' use is especially objected to rather than was increasingly objected to. But as I said I don't object to Homerethegreat's proposed change. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes around "ancestral homeland"

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

Adding quotes here does not suggest the claim is tenuous - it does suggest it is how the place is referred to and seen by one group, but not by all - as the Jewish homeland. I would have thought that whose land this was recently, relatively recently, historically across many centuries and whose land this was in ancient (earliest recorded) times is central to the whole conflict. Two groups of people at least consider this to be their ancestral homeland. Also it is part of a quote from ADL, rather than a neutral term used by the source, I've moved the quote marks to make that clearer. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete The claims are central to the conflict, but that doesn't necessitate quotation marks. It is settled history that Jewish culture originates in the Levant. The quotation marks remain clunky, and there is no need to keep it as a quoted sentence fragment, beyond to say that it is the perspective of the ADL and not of Wikipedia. That isn't how wikipedia articles work.
If you are so passionate about having quotation marks, the entire passage can be brought in. Otherwise, they should be removed as they take away far more than they add. TimeEngineer (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TimeEngineer, looking again, in context, it is already clear that the whole sentence is communicating an ADL view, rather than being a WP:VOICE statement, so the quotes are unnecessary. I have removed them. Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality banner

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

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

Please change

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

to

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

[1] [2] Windsorchair (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/vg_muenster/j2023/1_L_1011_23_Beschluss_20231117.html
  2. ^ https://openjur.de/u/2479560.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_the_river_to_the_sea&oldid=1191099032"