Talk:Palestinian fedayeen/Archive 1

Archive 1

title

i can see this article being turned into "fedayeen in the arab-israeli conflict", but i don't quite feel "fedayeen (palestinian)" is a neutral title.. overall, the rest of the article has some promise and seems to have been started on a good note. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Jaakobou: Thanks for your comments. Originaly, there was no article about this topic, it was just buried in the general Fedayeen article with a few inane lines at Fedayeen#Palestinians, so then I created this article based on those two key words "Fedayeen" and "Palestinians" so as not to move to far from that "parent" article. Thus what you are suggesting here would take this "Fedayeen (Palestinian)" article much further afield. I do not necessarily object to that either.IZAK 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • beying that fedayeen is a generic term i concur with the need of a more israeli related article. the title though, needs a change. since you agree and i agree also, i give you, the creator of the page, the honors of making the page move. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, now this title matches Arab-Israeli conflict; Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Israeli-Lebanese conflict making it "evens-stevens". IZAK 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • being that fedayeen are not a people or a clear organization, i'd prefer the title "Fedayeen in the Arab-Israeli conflict" - would you object to the change? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Well now we have User Tewfik (talk · contribs) who has moved [1] [2] the article to it's new name of Palestinian Fedayeen. What are his views? He is an expert in these kind of topics. But I do think that you are trying to "globalize" and generalize the context of a very specific set of events and topic. After all, anyone can squeeze almost anything the Jews and Arabs have fought over in the Middle East into the "Arab Israeli conflict" and this is no different.IZAK 06:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
          • i really don't follow your comment. anyways, i'm a bit busy with other issues at the moment, so i think i'll let this article be for now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Jaakobou, when an editor whose first langauge is English makes an edit that includes a correction of poor English phrasing, please don't blindly revert their edit and reinsert the nonsense-speak that you first put there (ie "[they] were propagating mostly from ..."). As for the insertion of the word "gangs", either you don't understand the implications of the term in this context or you are knowingly including it in order to make a point. "Groups" would be a far more neutral word to use if you simply want it to be clear that they were not a unified army or militia, as your edit summary suggested. --Nickhh 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nickhh, if the editor would make a neutral edit, there'd be no need to "reinsert the nonsense-speak". both you and i do understand the implications of the term "gangs" and i believe your change - [3] - to something 'completely harmless' such as "groups" fails (WP:NPOV) the mention that, these fedayeen are militant (terrorist at many times) mob assemblies and not (for example) a chess group. the term "gangs" seems fitting enough but i'm open to replacement suggestions -- which include the fact that they are militant -- from an "editor whose first langauge [sic] is English".

p.s. i don't quite believe they had a base, it's a mob organization. open to suggestions on that one as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have been perfectly easy for you to make a partial revert you know, and change only the part you believed wasn't neutral, without reinserting the nonsense part. Oh yes and a typo on my part, I do apologise. As for the gang/group issue, well, "group" is simply more neutral and isn't leading the reader into an assumption that they were merely criminals, which is where your POV appears to lie. The references earlier in the intro to them being "guerillas" and to "bombings and murders" makes quite clear that they weren't a chess group. Finally to note that they were "based" in a country is not to suggest in fact that they had a specific permanent location in that country that acted as a base, so I actually don't see the problem there either. --Nickhh 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. i don't see the problem with "gangs", the word only implies legality in a constructed system and not during warfare; the replacement with "group" changes the kernel of what fedayeen were (and still are to a degree). the term "guerrilla" seems a bit over organized to my taste (as would platoon, outfit, etc.) to describe the way the militants were "organized" (/incited into action) but if you insist i'm willing to use it. i'm thinking that we could change the phrasing completely to avoid this issue if you (or anyone else) could find reliable source(s) on who/how they were being rallied into action in each country (kind of a problem with how arab autocracies keep these things secret). i'm still open for suggestions as long as they stay true to the nature of the fedayeen (i'm not implying legality here).
2. as to the "base" issue, i guess we could phrase it that they had used these countries as a "main launching pad" for their activity... if you prefer this phrasing (or have another to suggest) i'm open to hear them also; the word "base" on it's own implies both too much of a military organizational feel and also implies continuity -- which is partially true if you consider the egyptian/albanian rule of 1830-40s and the years that followed -- but i tend to think it does not belong in the concentrated topic of "palestinian fedayeen".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think "gang" is too loaded a phrase. As for the base issue, it's not a major thing - "operating from [Jordan etc]" or "[used Jordan etc as a] launching pad" pretty much covers the same point. The whole article, as you suggest, needs a lot more work on it, but I'm not an expert to that level of detail --Nickhh 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

if i understand correctly, we've reached some sort of agreement on gangs (as a default for now until we may come up with a better replacement) and with the "launching pad" suggestion. i'll make the adjustments some time soon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I said I thought "gangs" is too loaded, ie unsuitable unless they chose to self-define themselves that way. I stand by that point --Nickhh 10:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

well then, give replacement suggestions that are true to the core of the subject matter. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did, right at the top of this section - groups. That is the word used to define, in a neutral way - without any implications either of heroism or criminality - a small number of people operating together. It's not a huge issue, but that's the word I'd use. --Nickhh 12:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this seems to be going like a circular conversation. you can go back to the top to see my reservations from the overly neutral term, and if you wish to bring other suggestions to the table, i will give them due weight. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very circular, as I'd already pointed out. Plus your "per talk" edit summary seems to refer to the fact that you and I reach a stalemate over the relatively minor issue of "gangs" vs the manifestly more neutral "groups" .. but that you therefore have the right to insert your preferred word after all, while it is incumbent on me - though not you - to come up with another option, which you will graciously then give "due weight to". And you messed up the English again as well. --Nickhh 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor presentation of the term

This article does not adequately represent the subject matter under discussion. The phrase Palestinian fedayeen is still in use in Arabic and can be used to refer to any Palestinian militants or militant groups, even today. The category Category:Defunct Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist is therefore not appropriate here]] since the article does not discuss an organization, but rather Palestinian militants in general. I will remove that category and will be making some changes to better reflect the term and its use today. Tiamut 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree with the removal of "Former designated terrorist organizations", but being that a large chunk of the palestinian fedayeen are terrorist by mere designation of operation - i disagree with the removal of the "Palestinian terrorists" category. it's not meant to say that all palestinain fedayeen are terrorists, but they are to be included into the category (just as irgun would be included into jewish terrorists). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, largely because fedayeen is a term that refers not to an organization but to a type of fighter. Tiamut 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

and what type of fighter is that? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. why are you changing the arabic translation and revving up the "resistance" terminology? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What I amn doing is writing the article using reliable scholarly sources. There was no source for the arabic translation given; I've now provided two different sources with two different translations. Tiamut 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

what you are doing is making a lot of article edits that repeat the arab-islamic narrative as if it's 100% correct while removing any representation that the "resistance" movement is also a terror/jihad movement. i'm not saying we should remove the resistance narrative, but i believe your changes are treating this subject from a skewed "it is indeed resistance" POV (explain to me how both sunni and shia represent "resistance" to each other in iraq). How is your arabic btw? last i checked "fedayeen" translated to guerrilla, not "freedom fighter"... i request you clean up the material (for example move less reliable sources to a separate paragraph that explains how "they" interpret it) where possible before i'm forced to make large edits/cuts that might remove a lot of the POV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) considering you've made more than 50 edits with many contested changes, i'd expect at least the issue i addressed, to be fixed before moving on with more edits. i can't go over all of them, but i start with the extra note of the removal of a fairly well established source of intofrmation on the counts that it is dubious [4]. considering, there was a percieved POV direction with your edits, i request you take the pace in which you make them down a little esp. when you think your edit might be contested. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope sorry Jaakobou, but you can't delete 17,000 bytes of sourced and attributed material I added in a WP:NPOV fashion and expect me to sit on my hands. You have not raised specific or valid concerns, and I don't have to watch you vandalize an article by removing my additions in toto. Tiamut 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i've raised an issue, and instead of adressing it, you've continued with contested edits... apparently 17000 bytes of them. you can skip the dramatics, and adress the issues i've raised.. if you feel certain portions of your edits are clean and would not be contested, you can reinstate them... but i won't sift through 17000 bytes to keep the few fair additions you've made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, all you have done is raised your opinion of how you perceive POV in my edits, without citing anything specifically. You cannot delete 17,000 bytes of sourced material on that basis. It's called vandalism when you do. I am asking you kindly now to self-revert. If you do not take me up on this offer, I will report you to WP:ANI for disruptive editing and vandalism. Tiamut 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

source question 1

requesting clarification regarding the input within' the following sources:

"[[freedom fighter]](s)"<ref name=Nawawy>{{cite book|title=''The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Process in the Reporting of Western Journalists''|author=Mohammed El-Nawawy|publisher=Inc NetLibrary|year=2002|page=49|isbn=1567505457}}</ref> or "self-sacrificers"<ref name=Rea>{{cite book|title=''The Arab-Israeli Conflict''|author=Tony Rea and John Wright|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=1993|page=43|isbn=019917170X}}</ref>) [5]

please explain who the writer is, the context in the source (palestinian-arab/arab/other+time stamp), and who is the one refered to as using the given translation/meaning.

p.s. i'd tend to reject the "Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements" definition without getting some proper information to the source (its more than clear that fedayeen is not directly referred to palestinian only and the definition, if it is indeed as presented, is false). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please look up the material yourself. They are all available in google book search. Thanks. Tiamut 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i'd appreciate a link maybe. i still don't see how these sources explain the massive change of "feel" you've made in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

commment - source 1 - The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Process in the Reporting of Western Journalists - is missing pages 21-51 in the google book preview - [6], meaning that page 49 is missing, and i request source related information here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, please see my comment above. I am very serious that I will report you for disruptive editing if you fail to restore the mass of material you deleted. Second, when you do a google search, it is best to se3arch for the words you are looking for in order to access that specific page. In this case, searching for "freedom fighters" and "fedayeen" and the author's name "Nawawy" brings up this link. Enjoy. Tiamut 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm receiving a "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". please just answer the questions i've raised regarding the sources you wish to include.

p.s. we can solve this dispute and insert most of the new material you've included (but in a less leading manner) if you try to reply to my concerns regarding the sources and the changes you're making into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the link, that is impossible. I just pressed on the link I provided you here it is again, and the text is there, highlighted and everything. Please do your own homework. It is not my job to read things for you. Tiamut 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can view the link as well, but sometimes the resolution to the error Jaakobou is seeing is getting or signing into a Google/gmail account. -- tariqabjotu 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out tariqabjotu. Tiamut 22:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your so-called concerns, I cannot determine what those are, beyond your allegation that my edits are somehow POV. That does not justify the mass blanking you have carried out, particularly since every sentence is cited, sourced and attributed to a reliable source. You need to restore the material you blanked and be specific about which sentences are objectionable. Tiamut 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you tariqabjotu for the suggestion, it was actually logging out that fixed the issue.

Tiamut, i fail to see how the remark by "Zaharna (1997)" inside a book of Mohammed El-Nawawy is suddenly facilitated as an expert translation... i can't go into the references section on this book.. but obviously, i can't accept this as a source for this translation from this book alone... he doesn't even make the claim himself, but quotes someone else... what are the credentials of this other person? what's his political affiliation.

I suggest, instead of cutting the input at it's core, that we make a new subsection in the article and include all the material you've inserted (so it won't get lost). and then debate each source... i can't however, allow for you to insert what i see as problematic sources and claims into the lead... replacing other well referenced input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What well referenced input did I replace with this Nawawy's? There was no reference cited for the translation of fedayeen before (which was "one who is ready to sacrifice his life"). In fact, I only changed it after finding the two references I cited, translating it alternately as "freedom fighter" and "self-sacrificer". Here is the original citation for Zaharna in which he translates "fedayeen" as "freedom fighter". Do you have a source for the original translation "one who is ready to sacrifice his life"? Tiamut 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A google search of "one who is ready to sacrifice his life" and fedayeen mostly brings up copies of the information at Wikipedia see here. It seems that translation is a marvellous little bit of WP:OR, unless I am missing something. It certainly isn't written in any book searched by google. Tiamut 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, (per this diff [7])

the word "fedayeen" (Arabic: فدائيون translates to "guerrillas" in the google translator [8], Ynet encyclopedia translates it to "Suicide fighters", "those who self sacrifice" ([he] Error: {{Langx}}: transliteration text not Latin script (help) [9]. the http://dictionary.sakhr.com/ arabic dictionary "one who risks his life voluntarily , one who sacrifices himself" [10].

with all due respect to this Zaharna, i don't know who they are and what is their qualification to give a translation of the term.

the issue i have with your massive edit, is that it revs up the "resistance" narrative while removing some factual input that might create the impression that they are a terrorist movement - such as removal of 1,300 israelis killed or wounded between 1949 and 1958 by these attacks.

i also don't understand why you selectively choose information from the Orna Almog book, synthetically connecting all arab fedayeen to the palesitnian narrative also neglecting the "easy target to exploit their hatered" and "remindres of vonurability and anumosity to its existance" texts... i also don't understand why the Category:Palestinian terrorists was removed when it's clear that most activities were terroristic by nature (such as shooting on anyone who crosses a road from the nearby mountains and running back to a populated village)

i object to the removal of a well defined source - Fedayeen

i approached with with a basic request to tone down the narrative.. and this is still my request for this article. clearly, you've done a LOT of work here, so i suggested that instead of reverting it all out and discussing it all... you leave it in, but placed in a less decidedly location.

as of now though, i suggest you avoid from further editing so we can resolve the issues i raised.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, you raise specific objections which we can deal with point by point.

1. Regarding the translation of the word "fedayeen", of the sources you have provided, the only one I think qualifies as a reliable source is the Sakhr Arabic dictionary who translates the term as "one who risks his life voluntarily , one who sacrifices himself" [11]. This translation is very close to one of the two I provided (i.e. "self-sacrificers"). I have no objection to removing the term "freedom fighters" from the translation, as long as it is retained in the sentence thereafter (i.e. the sentence describing how Palestinians perceive the fedayeen). We can add this translation alongside the "self-sacrificers" one. Is this acceptable to you?
2. I removed the sentence on 1,300 israelis killed or wounded between 1949 and 1958 in these attacks for two reasons: a) it was repetitive, given that a more detailed breakdown of the casualties is still in the article (i.e. 400 killed and 800 wounded between 1951 and 1956); b) it is misleading, since it combines the figure of dead and wounded into one figure (even though the wounded represent twice as much as the dead) and it implies that fedayeen attacks began in 1949, when the first such attack actually tookplace in 1951 (according the source I cited in the text).
3. I don't understand your point about the Almog book, but from whqat I can gather, you seem to think I neglected to add material from that book that is relevant to the article. In that case, I encourage to add the material yourself, rather than deleting everything I added.
4. I removed the external link (not source) Fedayeen, because Palestine Facts is not a reliable source.
5. I don't understand what you mean by "tone down the narrative". In any case, rather than engaging in mass blanking, you could try making the changes you think are appropriate. Tiamut 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I removed "freedom fighters" and the Nawawy reference from the translation of the word, replacing it with the first definition offered by the Sakhr dictionary and retaining the other definition of "self-sacrificers" since it is a condensed version of the second definition provided by Sakhr. I will work on composing a terminology section that includes Nawawy's definition and those of the opposite viewpoint (i.e. "freedom fighter" vs. "terrorist" vs. "guerilla", etc.) At that point, we could perhaps move the UN encylopedia definition there, instead of retaining it in the introduction. Please note that I am not satisfied with the introduction as is. It is a mere draft that needs re-work once more information has been added to the article (it is still lacking a section on fedayeen today, the philosophy and objectives section should be expanded and should include a section of stregies and tactics, more casualty information should be added as there is currently nothing on fedayeen casualties or non-Israeli civilian casualties in Israeli reprisals on fedayeen, etc, etc.) Per WP:LEAD, the lead should define the subvject of the article and provide a summary of the topic as expressed int he article body. Given that the article has been significantly expanded and still will be, the introduction will change also. Tiamut 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued...

1. "fedayeen" - the change made to the first paragraph is acceptable.
2. "1,300 israelis killed" - information seems important enough to be also included in the intro and not only the body. here's a source for related intent, if you need one - "young middle-class or fedayeen factions anxious to exert pressure on Israel and the West through terrorism" [12]
3. "Almog book" - instead of interfering with a narrative insertion of the events, I suggested you try to apply NPOV while registering the materials...
   1. Orna Almog book, synthetically connecting all arab fedayeen to the palesitnian narrative also neglecting the "easy target to exploit their hatered" and "remindres of vonurability and anumosity to its existance" texts.
4. This reference - Fedayeen - seems reliable enough to be listed as an external link... care to qualify your justification that it is unreliable?
5. "tone down the narrative" - i believe you really don't understand. if you have, you would have removed the UN interpretation from the lead.
6. I'd rather not go into massive edits when i know they'd be contested and lead to edit warring... i suggest you slow down, fix the issues i've raised, and we continue from there.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm glad that the change to the first sentence is acceptable to you.
2. As I told you above, the intro still needs editing, given the massive amount of material added to the body and more to come. You have, however, ignored my concerns about the 1,300 figure. I suggest you address them (they are outlined in point two above) before you advocate for the inclusion of that information in the lead.
3. I still don't understand your point about the Almog book. The spelling mistakes and fragmentary quoting do nothing to help me understand either. Please try explaining again or amking the edit you would like to see made there so that I can better understand what you're getting at.
4. Palestine Facts is not an acceptable external link. It is a propaganda site and does not say who its authors are. [13]
5. As I said to you above, the intro still needs work and I have already offered to move the UN definition of fedayeen to a new section (that I will soon compose) entitled terminology, which will review all the different definitions of fedayeen, including that of "terrorist".
6. I don't understand your suggestion to "slow down". I made a few minor edits to sub-headings and the one edit that accomodated your concern about the definition. I'm not moving quickly right now. I do however reserve the right to add more reliably sourced material to the article any time now, per the descriptions I gave you above. I believe I have fully and satisfactorily dealt with all of your concerns. Tiamut 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

well,

1. "1300" - in case it was not understood, i agreed with your point on the "killed+injured".
2. "almog book" - please go into the reference and examine the text to find the words i've added... they belong in the article and you've skipped them... i don't mind you adding "resistance" narrative points, but you must also add the "terror" points made in teh same page of the source you're using... otherwise, you're selectively adding a single POV.
3. "Palestine Facts" - i'm willing to leave this discussion for later.
4. "the UN definition" - this is an obvious error... fedayeen is an arabic term not exclusive to the palestinians.
5. "slow down" - well, you've slowed down now that you've opened an ANI against me... if you want to do the honorable thing, you'll retract the ANI post and admit that this is a content dispute issue... same as with Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian only that this time it's a more complex issue.
6. i need to scoot for now... we'll continue discussions tomorrow probably.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I can't understand that you agree with that point when you don't make it explicit. Thanks for doing so now. However, my point remains that I don't think that Israeli casualty information from a ten-year period should be included in the intro. We need more information on casualty figures throughout the period in question and information of fedayeen figures as well, before we can start talking about adding that kind of information to the intro.
2. I will try to look at the Almog material in more detail soon to try and determine what it is that you are asking for. I would appreciate though if you would try to work on this yourself as well. I'm not here just to fulfill your editing requests.
3. Thanks for putting that aside.
4. I've drafted a new terminology section, per my comments to you above. I've moved the UN definition there, alongside Gilbert's definition from the Atlas of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I've noted thereafter that fedayeen can be used to refer to non-Palestinian militant or guerrila groups. (See this diff, for my latest edit)
5. I told you I would open an ANI on this issue if you did not self-revert your mass blanking of 17,000 bytes. You didn't. I did. And now we are here. I plan to continue editing. I've only "slowed down", because I don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I would like. I do have a real life too. Tiamut 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Questioning other sources

Boy, there have been a lot of changes on this article since I wrote the following note for the discussion page. At this point all the ref numbers have changed and I am no longer interested in changing it to reflect those changes; the refs themselves have not changed. I am on to other things, as I know, you two are. But I still want to add it now. This is what I was ready to include on 6Jan.

I have a problem with the number of casualities (400 + 900 appears to equal 1300) listed in Palestinian_Fedayeen#Emergence [corrected section and the following one]; something seems amiss, based on the refs given; 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The accessable ref 6, (Sachar) is used as the base for ref 9 (also 13 and 14 from JVL for maps). The Sachar page 450 ref seems to be a statement of a number with little back-up of those numbers(a 1-page ref). Ref 15 (Gilbert) lists 967 fatalities and by yearly total. However, the most detailed documentation of specifics appear on refs 7 and 8 (MFA), but these are just listed as ‘major’ or (just) ‘terror’ attacks around that time.

The problem I see is that the best-documented (described) MFA refs do not add up even close to the total deaths cited in the article. 30 incidents are listed as ‘major’ on 1st MFA ref, and 54 incidents are listed on 2nd MFA ref. From the MFA1 source, total killed adds to 84’ and MFA2 adds to 83 (my counts). Given this, I am skeptical that the actual numbers can add up to those cited in the article, since these lists contain several incidents when no one was killed or was unsuccessful. It could be that many more died in regular military actions, rather than under the re-defined usage as a ‘terrorist’. (Since that word generally wasn’t used at the time, I’d assume that these incidents have been re-defined by the MFA website for their own purposes.) The ref is but one step, documenting that ref is another. I tend to believe MFA more than the others, which seem to be ‘inbred’. I don’t know what the real numbers are, but I want the refs to equal, or at least, better approximate those included in the article. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need much better refs for the casualty figures. I too do not think the Israeli MFA is a good enough source, considering that it is likely not making distinctions between Palestinian fedayeen attacks and those of others. But I don't like to remove information until I can find a better substitute source. Scholarly sources I have read on the subject leave me questioning whether the figures are anywhere close to those currently cited in the article. When I finish compiling evidence for the Arbcomm case, I'll take the subject on in earnest. It requires going through multiple sources covering different time periods and it's challenging to find sources who discuss the casualties of fedayeen attacks in isolation.

I did find this from Benny Morris. He explains that Martin Gilbert's figure of 967 fatalities between 1949 and 1955, is 3 to 5 times higher than contemporary reports. He postulates that this inflation of the casualty figures by Gilbert is due to his using David Ben-Gurion's 1956 speech as a source in which Ben-Gurion uses the word nifga'im which refers to "casualties" in the broader sense of the term, as in both dead and wounded.

I think we should keep looking for another source that explcitly gives the exact numbers that are referred to by Morris as being much lower. In the meantime, we can replace the Israeli MFA source with the Gilbert source (its already cited as source here, we just have to locate the page number) and include Morris' comments on the matter. Alternatively, we can just add Morris' work now until we find other scholarly sources that dispute him. Tiamut 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick note

Take a look at "Ghosts and Infiltrators" in:

• Benvenisti, Meron (2000): Sacred Landscape: Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948. Chapter 5: Uprooted and Planted. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21154-5

And:

• Palestinian immigration (Israel)

Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I used the first source for the lead just now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To-Do List

I have devised a to-do list for the article after a basic scanning of it. Other users should also add factors that need attention to the list.

• In the first paragraph of the lead section, while most Israelis view them "terrorists" is not referenced. Although it is the lead section, quotes should always be backed by a reliable source.

• The During the 1956 war and the Between the 1956 and 1967 wars subsections should be merged.

• The Tactics subsection could use some more expansion, particularly by listing the specific tactics and with prose instead of a literal list.

• Also, shouldn't first intifada be capitalized and Fedeyeen (in the title) lowercased?

--Al Ameer son (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer Son.

• You are right that we need a source for the Israeli view in the intro. I'll try to find one.
• I don't think these sections should be merged. Rather, the section on the 1956 war should be expanded.
• Tactics does need expansion, as does the section on philosophical grounding and objectives and affiliated groups. Also, we need much more information on casualties throughout (on all sides) and more on the fedayeen today (there are still fedayeen groups that are active - such as the PFLP's military wing, etc.)
• Fedayeen in the title should be lowercased (good catch). I don't have a view on first intifada either way. Tiamut 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On the 1956 war, is there anything else that occurred? Did the fedayeen attack the invading Israeli army or launch rockets, raid any Israeli towns, military posts, etc.? I expanded the section although it could need some copyedting and prose improvement.

Also, I really believe first intifada should be capitalized since it is the name of a conflict. I'm going to go ahead and change it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried moving it to Palestinian fedayeen, but for some reason its not letting me. Could anyone do this? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I requested help for the move by following the link in the error message. (You can ask for help with that at Wikipedia:Requested moves or simply type {{db-move}} on page that you want to delete (i.e. in this case, Palestinian fedayeen) to make way for a move (of Palestinian Fedayeen) to that page. Tiamut 02:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that and thanks for the ref fix. I was getting very frustrated for something so simple.

I also wanted to ask you if we could add some information from Yasser Arafat#Battle of Karameh to the Jordan section of this article. It gets more into details about the operation and how it elevated Fatah (a new fedayeen group) to being ringleader of the fedayeen groups and the PLO. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I'll try to incorporate some stuff from the link Huldra provided to the Palestinian immigration article. It has a whole section on infiltration that should be here, not there. Good work by the way. Tiamut 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Great then! I'll start extracting info now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Article needs sections on activities, sponsors (financial, military, specific government backers), mentions of leadership (Arafat, Habash, Hawatmeh), the interrelations of the fedayeen groups (internal conflicts and divisions).

Hi Al Ameer Son. I've been reviewing the changes you made regarding the Battle of Karameh. Do you think you could look them over again? The passage you added leaves the reader wondering what is going on. For example, you write:

The town of Karameh, in particular, was home to the headquarters of an emerging fedayeen group called Fatah, led by Yasser Arafat. The town's name is the Arabic word for "dignity", which elevated its symbolism to the Arab people, especially after the Arab defeat in 1967. The operation was in response to attacks against Israel, including rockets strikes from Fatah and other fedayeen groups into the occupied West Bank. Knowledge of the operation was available well ahead of time, and the government of Jordan (as well as a number of Fatah commandos) informed Arafat of Israel's large-scale military preparations. Upon hearing the news, many fedayeen groups in the area, including the PFLP and the DFLP, withdrew their forces from the town. Arafat was advised by a pro-Fatah Jordanian divisional commander to withdraw his men and headquarters to nearby hills, but Arafat refused,[38] stating, "We want to convince the world that there are those in the Arab world who will not withdraw or flee".[39]

Does this make sense to you? You refer to "the operation" without describing whose operation or what. Can you change it to read more clearly? Also, would you mind clarifying which source states: "The operation was in response to attacks against Israel ...", etc.? In general, I would prefer if you begin by citing every sentence. Later we can remove the extra citations. This helps me to determine what items are source-based and what are just your own formulations. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes myself as recorded here. I would however, like to see the source that says that they knew the attack was coming. I never knew about that and would like to read more about it (and attribute it directly in the article since people may challenge its inclusion without a source). Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite, I just copy and pasted it from the Battle of Karameh section in the Yasser Arafat article (I did write that section), but deleted some sentences that were not relevant to the "fedayeen" as a group but to Arafat only. If you think they were important you could just look at the Battle of Karameh section in the Arafat article.

The source is strictly by Said Aburish because it is not backed by a citation in the biography.

On a different note, what are you ideas on new sections. Activities could be scratched; The Tactics section and its subsections already pretty much cover it, I'll add a couple of more incidents. However, I think there should be something in the article about inner conflicts, especially those between Fatah and the Rejectionist Front (PFLP, DFLP, others). There is plenty of information for me to add, from Arafat's biography by Aburish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Ameer son (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding stuff on the differences between the different groups would be great. I don't know if I would scratch anything off the list for now since I feel there's still more work to be done here and there, everywhere :). I'll try to look it over again and get back to you with more specific ideas.

For the the inner conflicts, where do you think it should be added. I know it should be either immediately before Philosophical grounding and objectives or after it because the reader would need some prior knowledge on the groups and individual leaders. If you think Activities have a possibility of mention, it could be a list of incidents from the first attack to the last and could be arranged by date. Al Ameer son (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

About Aburish's claim, I think we should attribute it directly to him (or remove it altogether) unless we can find other sources for it. Since it already covered there in Battle of Karameh, it doesn't need repeating here anyway. I will attribute it to his voice there as well. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Al Ameer Son, I made changes to your edits of the intro here. Besides a copy edit, I removed the information cited to Benvenisti attributing the outbreak of the 1956 war to fedayeen actions from the intro. This is a massive oversimplification, not borne out by either Benny Morris nor Ian Lustick, both of whom indicate that while Israel cited them as the main reason for their attack of Egypt in 1956, reports of fedayeen actions were in fact exaggerated and sometimes based on pure falsehoods. Tiamut 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I also added the two invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 to the list of wars Israel mounted in the name of stopping the fedayeen. Tiamut 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, it looks better now. I just wanted to get it started. I am curious however, on the matter of splitting the first and second passages in the lead. The importance of the fedayeen to the Palestinians and their general political ideology should be merged with the definition.

I like splitting paragraphs for clarity. Also, the two thoughts seem somehow separate to me. Tiamut 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So should we expand the first passage? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to? Is there something specific you had in mind? Tiamut 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not very informed on lead section guidelines so I'm going to look into WP:Lead because I remember a user who copyedited the Yasser Arafat article told me something about the lead section layout. All I know is that, there should be a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead section - which we have not violated. So yea I guess its fine how it is for now. I'll look more into it later. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I've decided to take a semi-active role in this article.

Being that I'm not interested in getting into a version conflict where we work hard and end up upset for our work being undone, I'll make my notes, and hope the involved editors will comply with them or at least discuss them seriously before moving ahead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue 1 - resolved

I request a good source for "secular nationalist orientation", since I believe this assertion to be inaccurate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find a source for it, but the fact is all the major groups that make or made up the fedayeen are secular; the PFLP, DFLP, ALF, PLF, as-Saiqa, PFLP-GC are of socialist or Communist orientation and Fatah is secular and nationalist). It could be however that some groups are not completely "Palestinian" nationalist but more "Arab" nationalist instead. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are Islamist but they are not exactly fedayeen and the beginning of the article clarifies this. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

One source is Francois Burgat's, Face to Face with Political Islam (2003), which says

...the 'fundamentalists' of Hamas have done nothing more than takeover from the fedayeen (Arab commandos in resistance to Israel) of the PLO by transforming the nationalist dynamism of the first generation of 'secular' nationalists from a political to a symbolic, cultural force.

Tiamut^talk 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I guess we can use that, but I think we both would prefer a book about history -- rather than about Political Islam -- as a source.

Al Ameer son, Fatah isn't really a secular, they are only less of a fundamentalist than Hamas - fedayeen is a cultural term that derives from Islamic culture, so I think inserting "secular/religious" into this is false even if most of them were not fundamentalist - as I understand, many fedayeen were also druze (religous) and christian, or muslim by self designation - so personally, I think we should either find a good source discussing the groups you mentioned or just skip this problematic detail. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fatah is strictly secular, and thats one of the major differences you hear on the news between Fatah and Hamas. There are many Christian members of Fatah and the only fundamentalists in the organization I can think of is the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades but they form in a much later time (2001ish). Also I don't think the origin of of the term fedayeen really dictates whether the groups were secular or religious; Armenians - who are completely Christian - used the term to describe their fighters against the Azeris who were Muslim. Also, are you sure Palestinian druze fought for any of the fedayeen groups? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, another source that makes clear that the fedayeen are secular is Beverly Milton-Edwards, who is already quoted in the terminology section, where she describes the distinction between fedayeen and mujahaddin. Tiamut^talk 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Ameer son, if Fatah is so secular, why did arafat use the Islamic terms of Jihad and Shaheed talking to his people?

Anyways, please just fix the sources on this to be something of value and my wiki-problem with the designation will be over. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He used the terms to elevate the effect of his words and to simply appeal to the mostly Muslim populous. Really, I don't know if he used it for that, just assuming. Arafat was very complex and charismatic and he knew how to appeal to different ideologies. As for the cites, I'm going to let Tiamut insert her references because I don't know where they're exactly supposed to be. I hope this issue is settled now, correct? Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a bit of a nag request, but I'd appreciate a link to the diff when the sources are inserted. cheers on the calm discussion, I won't push it further (for now) once my point, about the cultural/religious tone, has been addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff meeting your request. Tiamut^talk 12:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue 2 - resolved

I request that "most israelis view them as terrorists", be changed to "most Israelis view the Fedayeen as terrorists" (+ source) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. I already mentioned that above in the To-Do list. Adding the "fedayeen" part could be added right now without though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

cheers for now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue was closed with this diff - [14] - we still need a good source, but that's not something that bothers me too much at the moment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue 3 - closed for now

I was just thinking of what Al Ameer son said. I think it would be impossible to differentiate between 'Palestinian' Arab-fedayeen and 'non Palestinian' Arab-fedayeen and I'd suggest we change the article title to Fedayeen in the Arab-Israeli conflict (Arab and not Palestinian, because we want to include Arab countries into the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 09:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. The fedayeen that attacked Israel were all Palestinian Arabs but some were ideologically Palestinian nationalist while others were Arab nationalist. There might have been a few incidents where Syrian and Jordanian soldiers acted like fedayeen but they could just be considered infiltrators from rather less advanced armies than fedayeen. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that each and every fedayeen attack (except a couple) on Jews was from "Palestinians"? This doesn't fit the Arab modus operani and to be frank, it's WP:SYN - you'll be falsely connecting each source that uses the words 'fedayeen' and 'Arab' with this article and create a false image. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the very early stages after 1948 Palestinian Arabs were the primary fedayeen, infiltrating to obtain crops from their former fields or attacking military personnel and civilians. Like I said some could have been Syrian or Jordanian commandos (in the 1956 war as Morris states) but besides this they were Arabs from Palestine (if you disagree with the term "Palestinian"). Also you must also consider the main time period the article covers (1950-90ish). --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also if we changed the article's name, it wouldn't be suitable for the article's context which covers Palestinian groups and reasons why Palestinians attacked Israel and how Palestinian fighters came to being and major events or milestones of the fedayeen i.e. water diversion plant explosives, Karameh, first hijacking. However, if this issue gets out of hand, we'll simply have a consensus on it. Its not that big of a deal to me anyhow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I understand your point. I'm thinkg then, (suggestion) that we should change the title to Palestinian fedayeen in the Arab Israeli conflict.... this way, we can make note that in some cases, it's not 100% clear if the sources are discussing former residents of the mandate, former residents of ottoman palestine, or arabs from the surrounding area... I project a huge mess with this article later on with people synthesizing non-palestinian arab attacks into the article - we should find a way to protect from this problem so we can focus on content rather than "were they palestinains or arabs??" type of questions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, my POV is fairly known, I have another preferred suggestion (although it does not concentrate on Palestinian origins), which is 'Fedayeen of Palestine', i.e. it concentrates on the Fedayeen who came from the mandate rather than on ethnicity (which is a controversial discussion).

... trying to be constructive, waiting on a response. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Every source cited in this article refers to "Palestinian fedayeen" as distinguished from fedayeen in general. Your proposal to change the title to Fedayeen of Palestine strikes me as strange considering that Palestine ceased to exist as a geopolitical unit after the 1948 war and this article discusses incidents from 1951 onward. I don't think that the participation of some non-Palestinian Arabs in the Palestinian fedayeen movement neccesitates a change to the title. The Japanese Red Army and other foreign groups also cooperated with the Palestinian fedayeen, but that doesn't belie tha fact that the movement was overwhelmingly Palestinian. Tiamut^talk 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why limit the article to incidents from 1951 and onward? Surely Palestinians were fedayeen much before that - including fedayeen riots and attacks on the British. That's why I made the initial name change suggestion. If you want the article to be limited to post 1948 activity, that should be indicated in the article title. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Were there Palestinian fedayeen before 1948? I haven't seen sources that say so. Could you provide some so that we can continue this discussion based on sources? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I also haven't heard of fedayeen raids against the British other than the Egyptian attacks against them in Suez - but that does not concern this article. Sure, there were attacks against the British in Palestine (by Jews and Arabs alike) but the attacks weren't for the same purpose as the attacks against the Israelis. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're only justifying my suggestion for "...in the Israeli-Arab conflict". We should really make sure the article title is well defined to avoid confusion and petty arguments over what sources fit and what sources don't. I have no intention of forcing where to border the content without the consent of fellow editors.. but we really should declare that border thinking about the longevity of the article, not the next few weeks only. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name could result in broadening the content of the article tremendously and would include Jewish attacks on Brits and Arabs. I think this would also cause confusion and will mess up the page. In my opinion this article discusses the history of the Palestinian fedayeen from their minor raids against Israel in the 50s, to their sabotaging campaign against Israel in the 60s, to their hijackings of international flights in the 70s and rocket attacks and deadly raids against Israel in the late throughout the late 1960s-80s. It discusses their emergence, unity, political positions and international affiliations. Their goal was to destroy the Zionist state and replace it with an Arab Palestine. This state was created in 1948 and should therefore discuss Palestinian fedayeen activities since that year. We could certainly have a background section of some sort but nothing so drastic as changing the article name and consequently, the context. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please work with me here. I don't mind however you wish to define the article material, but the current title represents a problem. You've raised the issue of Jewish attacks. Well, for starters I thought about the suggestion of Arab-Palestinian fedayeen. But then I also realized that 'fedayeen' is an arab-islamic cultural definition and not a western one, so it doesn't fit Jews. I've already made a number of suggestions, I'd appreciate it if you try to consider my points and maybe make a suggestion yourself. Another suggestion I just came up with is "Arab-Palestinian fedayeen in the State of Israel". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree weith a title change. As I said previously, practically every source listed in the article refers to "Palestinian fedayeen". Your suggestion of Arab Palestinian fedayeen in the State of Israel is inappropriate, given that Palestinian fedayeen did not operate only in Israel, the majority were based outside of the state and not all of their attacks took place within Israel. Tiamut^talk 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let this issue go for now, but I'm certain that as I go through the sources, we'll meet problems stemming from this unresolved issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PLO

I was reading through the article and this excerpt got my attention: Fedayeen groups began joining the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), beginning in 1968. I thought they began joining in 1964-65? Also the article lacks necessary information on who founded the PLO, led it in the beginning, the fact that there were more than a "dozen" groups (there were over 30 according to Aburish who claims he has a list of them). We don't have to get too crazy on the subject since it has its own article, but think the above points should be addressed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The source that indicates that the fedayeen began joining the PLO in 1968 is Alain Gresh and Dominique Vidal (2004). The New A-Z of the Middle East. I.B.Tauris, 232. ISBN 1860643264. Do you have source that indicates otherwise? If you do, perhaps we can place the differing viewpoints side and side. Without a source though, I don't see why we should change material that is reliably sourced and attributed. Remember, the PLO technically did not come into existence until 1968. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aburish states on pages 56-57,

Unable to respond to the Israeli threat militarily [he is speaking of Israel's plans do divert water from the Jordan River], the Arab leaders passed the buck and voted to set up the Palestine Liberation Organization under Ahmed Shukeiri,... In May 1964 the new PLO held a conference... issued a National Covenant which committed it to armed struggle and appointed itself as the representative of the Palestinian people, ...the backing of all the Arab countres for the creation of the PLO as an umbrella organization under which all Palestinian groups operated or should operate (though some, like the ANM did so reluctantly and in a limited way)

Then on page 64, he states

[Yusuf] Orabi's death came close to widening the chasm among a Syrian leadership already quarelling over whether to support Fatah [not a part of the PLO just yet] or al-Saiqa, another Damascus based Palestinian force operating under the aegis of the PLO".

Aburish claims that after Karameh in 1968, Fatah not only joins the PLO but Arafat is chosen to lead it in 1969, replacing Yahya Hammouda. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange ... I found another source, the Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, which notes that between 1964 and 1968, the PLO consisted of SAJKA (a Syrian Baath-affiliated group that had been operating since 1958) Fateh (the main faction, who had been operating armed attacks since 1965) and the PFLP (who had been engaged in armed actions since January of 1967). The first chairman of the group was Ahmed Shukairy. The PLO constitution was ratified in 1968 and Arafat assumed chairmanship in 1969. Ten fedayeen groups joined the organization in 1970. This source is more detailed than both Aburish and Vidal. Perhaps we should explore more however, before determining how to make changes that more faithfully reflect the reality at the time. Tiamut^talk 02:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I look into some wikipedia articles too. Perhaps they have additional sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I really want to get the infighting section started but I only need a suggestion on where to put it. I was thinking whether it should be placed in the history section or have a section of its own after the Hstory section (not subsection). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Ameer son (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer Son! I was thinking that material might go well under the "Philosophical grounding and objectives" sections. Perhaps before the sub-section on "tactics". In any case, why don't you add it where you think it should go and then we can move it, if it doesn't flow well. What do you think? Tiamut^talk 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! I'll basically add the facts and you could go ahead and copyedit and relocate it if it needs to. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a section on infighting but its just a stub. It could use some copyediting and prose: The extreme majority was was copied and pasted from the Yasser Arafat article. I'll add information on the Lebanese Civil War (pro-Syria PLO vs Fatah, Fatah al-Intifada vs Fatah) as well as on the breakup of the PFLP. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Secular vs. Nationalist

I'd be interested in removing the word secular from the intro.

here's a listing of the current references in the article:

1. [15] - "the 'fundamentalists' of hamas ... 'secular' nationalists...", the emphasize is on the switch from a political struggle to an islamist struggle - the origin/secularism of the fedayeen is not a given from this source which compares an overly religious group with a less religious group in the context of global jihad.
2. [16] - "such struggle... well rewarded by the religious establishment. Declared as martyrs... promised rewards in paradise" , the emphasize is that the word mujahidin was too holy at the time for use. The text i excerpted clearly shows that the word "secular" doesn't fit.

The sources used within the article seem to agree with my understanding of the fedayeen movement, so pending better/other sources, I'd be interested in removing the word 'secular' from the intro. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how you view these two sources to be in support of your position. In any case, in Islamic Politics in Palestine, Milton-Edwards is clear in her designation of the fedayeen as secular nationalist. See this link. In case, you cannot access it, it says:

Furthermore, Palestinians took up arms in the name of the nationalist struggle, and their fedayeen forces fought for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, secular, not sectarian or Islamic.

I believe that that makes three reliable sources indicating that the fedayeen were secular nationalists. Do you still require more? Tiamut^talk 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. The last source is the only one that puts emphasis on religious intentions of the movement - and still, non of the three places any importance on the religiousness of the movement (they say it's less zealot than hamas). It's my belief/understanding (based on the sources) that the fedayeen movement can be designtaed as nationalist. nothing extra... we could say that it was not Islamist by nature... but saying it was secular is still unsupported by the sources (as I read them).. i'm willing to open this for a 3O if needed... to be frank, i doubt it there will be a source that say "fedayeen are a secular movement". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. what does Al Ameer son think of this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm responding to a request for a third opinion which was posted with a link to this discussion section.

• If reliable sources designate the movement as secular, it should be mentioned and cited appropriately in the text.
• The phrase "secular nationalist" need not be used in the first paragraph of the introduction, as it is clear in the second paragraph.
• If emphasis on the secular aspect later in the article is a matter of controversy, the Rfc process may be helpful.

Hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

commet by Jaakobou:

It helps some, it is my belief that current sources describe the fedayeen as 'not driven by Islam' and as such, I'd be interested in cutting back some of the emphasis on 'secular'.

My suggested, considering this comment,

first paragraph: 'guerrillas of a secular nationalist orientation'->'guerrillas of a nationalist orientation'.

second paragraph: 'The ideology... was secular and mainly socialist or communist, and their proclaimed purpose was to destroy Zionism, liberate Palestine and establish it as "a secular, democratic, nonsectarian state" although the 'secular' part of the slogan was had clear disagreement on within the fedayeen ranks. ^source

Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All "secular" means is "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis" (New Oxford American Dictionary).

I really don't understand why there is any controversy about it here. And no, I won't get involved in that controversy :-) I'm simply clarifying my third opinion. — Athaenara ✉ 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The essence of the fedayeen demands are rooted in Islamic religious sentiments and therefore, there's a reason that the 'secular' part of the slogan was had clear disagreement.

Thank you for the clarification, but I'm not sure it closes the discussion. Have you had a chance to go over the sources? Maybe you or Tiamut can come up with another suggestion that places less emphasis on the 'secular' angle (which is my current position). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it is you that has a problem with the formulation, despite the three sources attesting to the "Secular" character of the fedayeen, you might want to provide at least one reliable source that indicates that its use in inappropriate or that offers an alternate definition, which could be contrasted against the one provided by the sources we have. I can't suggest something that places "less emphasis" on the "secular angle" when there are no sources challenging that. We write to report what reliable sources say, not what we wish was true. Thanks.

Aaah, now I see the Freedman source. Okay, that's one source stating that for some fedayeen, the secular orientation had depp meaning, while for others it was merely a slogan. However, in either case, Freedman acknowledges that the fedayeen identified themselves as such before the world community. I think adding his opinion on the use of "secular" as a "slogan" in the introduction is WP:UNDUE. I believe it's already mentioned in the article. If not however, we can add it to the section on infighting. Tiamut^talk 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the problem with all the sources and showed a source that echo's my concerns. I'm open to suggestions that cut down a bit on the "secular" narrative. If you feel you have a viable suggestion, you can make an edit and link the diff here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

communal editing

in the spirit of communal editing, i request we avoid quick/blind reverting of the edits of one another. [17]

the addition of mujahidin above the fedayeen helps make the clear distinction that these are reciprocal but different titles. the connection among the two is strong enough to include both in the body of the article and also with a reference at the top. Examples for this exist in many israeli-palestinian articles and I request my edit be re-inserted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it is WP:UNDUE to highlight mujahhadin at the top of the article. The relationship between them and the fedayeen (or the lack thereof) is covered in the section on terminology at length. The word is laready wikilinked in that discussion, which uses Beverly Milton-Edwards as a source. Your highlighting of the term by placing it as a see also at the top of the page does nothing for the reader's comprehension of this subject. Please don't reinstate the edit. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, please note that i'm doing my best at keeping things as friendly as possible despite my reservations. Personally, I wasn't aware of the distinction among the two before I read the second source - which demonstrates that the addition of the term at the top could indeed help the understanding of new and even old readers. I'm fairly convinced regarding this issue and would be interested in a 3rd opinion in the case that you are not persuaded.

I'll repeat again, that a number of artilces in the israeli-palesitain realm do repeat the same structure i've made even with topics that are discussed within' the article. We could fix it up to look more professional, but I'm not planning a war-like revert before we find something agreed on the both of us... and preferably Al Ameer son also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do solicit a 3O on the issue. I strongly believe it's WP:UNDUE and redundant to place a link to the term at the top of the page when it is discussed at length further down. I do appreciate you civility in this discussion. Tiamut^talk 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

3O summary by Jaakobou: Despite being a fairly informed on many issues in the Israeli-Arab conflict, I was not aware of the clear distinction between Fedayeen and Mujahidin until I inspected a secondary source within the article. So, I believe it is a valuable distinction to make for the readers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I believe that my initial phrasing/redirect was a bit unclear and could be done better... perhaps with 'Fedayeen refers to..., for the religious ... see Mujahidin' Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll provide a third opinion on this matter. According to the manual of style, specifically Wikipedia:Hatnote, disambiguation links such as this should be used only where there are multiple meanings of the article title. In this article, the issue is two article on related topics, not with similar titles. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this sort of disambiguation note is not ideal here. However, this would be perfectly appropriate for a link in the see also section near the bottom.

The reason for my opinion is this: Disambiguation links at the top are there in case the reader went to the wrong page. The see also section is in case the reader wants to read more about related topics. Since this is an issue of related topics, not going to the wrong page, a see also link is more appropriate.

In a sense, this means that both of you are right. Tiamut, a disambiguation link at the top is not the ideal way of connection these topics, though it's more of an issue of style rather than undue weight. Jaakobou, I agree that it's a valuable distinction to make for readers, which is why a see also link should be added for it. When someone finishes reading an article, the first place they'll look is the see also section, so that is where the link should be.

On a lighter note, if you started an edit war over this, I'd have to put it on WP:LAME. :-) Anyway, this sound like a reasonable solution to you two? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for giving both a look and a link to the related policy. From my perspective, this is a perfect example for "1) to provide disambiguation of closely related terms" as both Fedayeen and Mujahidin refers to guerrilla fighters; only one is rooted with pan-Arab nationalist/culture movement and the other is rooted within religious contexts. Both the religious and the "secular" are intertwined to begin with in the Arab society, and the terms are so closely used in historical notes that anyone not fluent with Arabic and its language nuances (*here*) would mix up the two terms... convinced? :D Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pyrospirit,

Your reasoned explanation and proposed compromise is absolutely fine with me. Note that we did not edit-war over this. I did remove the disambig on the top of the page after Jaakobou placed it there and posted here in response to his objection, but Jaakobou showed exemplary restraint by not undoing that action, instead opting to open an 3O. If Jaakobou agrees, I will place Mujahadin in the see also section, since you are correct in noting it is a related, though distinct concept. Thank you for your input. Tiamut^talk 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The see also at the bottom would have been the obvious solution that I'm sure you would have agreed on. But there was a reason (*above*) I placed it as a hatnote. So, I requested a third opinion on the hatnote issue, not the see also at the bottom. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think the best choice style-wise in this case would be to only have it as a see also link. This is based on my interpretation of Wikipedia:Hatnote, which does indeed state one of the valid reasons for hatnotes to be "to provide disambiguation of closely related terms." However, I'm fairly sure "closely related terms" means that the titles are related, not that the content is related. This is because all three examples it gives of proper hatnote use involve cases where the titles are similar or identical; also, some of the examples of improper use of hatnotes given on that page have to do with linking to articles of similar content rather than similar titles.

Again, this is a fairly minor point of style in this case, so it really doesn't make that big of a difference either way. A see also would best conform to style guidelines, but of course there are exceptions to every rule. If you think I'm misinterpreting this or that a hatnote really would be best, it might be a good idea to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where you can get some more opinions on this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the best example to explain my belief is one of the "don't"s -- this one: "if they were interested in other types of trees". Basically, there's a big chance that a person unfamiliar with Arabic and its sub-contexts would look for the other type of "tree" (militant) and find himself in one of the Fedayeen/Mujahadeen articles without knowing that there is a difference. A simple: "...for the religious guerrilla militants, see 'Mujahidin'" would solve this ambiguity issue. something that a see also does not do. For me personally, that type of hatnote would have been of real value since I did not know the difference until going into one of the article sources (and I'm not at all new to these topics). Convinced? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just had a thought. We can probably resolve this issue by renaming the article "Palestinain Guerrilla" (sample ref) and discuss the different terminologies within the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This would also help resolve the #Secular vs. Nationalist discussions and allow more freedom in selection of source material that does not include either 'mujahidin' or 'fedayeen' (Arab words) in its language. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) p.s. I just now noticed this - 'Palestinian Militants'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a title change. All the sources used herein refer to "Palestinian fedayeen" specifically. A title change to Palestinian guerrilla would significantly broaden the scope of the article. I also don't see why it's necessary, given that there is a clear distinction between mujahadin and fedyaeen as indicated by the sources. Merging the two articles and adding a bunch of other stuff related to other guerrilla movements would make the article scope unwieldy. Tiamut^talk 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I similarly oppose the title change, too many other things involved. Also, it is somewhat a 'self-identified' term in Arabic and geographically specific, rather than one from Spanish (whatever) that is a western term brought into the area. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was just a suggestion. What about my notes regarding the Hatnote issue (15:29, 27 January 2008) above? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please address the raised suggestions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

suggestion/question: should i open an RfC regarding the issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jaakobou. I still think its WP:UNDUE and that the link should be in the "See also" section, as suggested by Pyrospirit as a compromise. If you want to open an RfC on the matter, that's fine with me. I don't think it's really all that important and no one else here (so far) has agreed it should be a hatnote, but if you think you will have more success by bringing in other viewpoints, by all means go ahead. Tiamut^talk 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it over and here's a suggestion I hope you'll agree to.

I'll restructure the see also section a little bit, and add both 'fedayeen' and 'mujahidin' into it under the context of 'palestinian political violence'. I feel that way, we'll have enough differentiation so that I'll let the hatnote issue go. acceptable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I need your consent for future reference. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you make the edit and if it's a problem, I'll revert and we'll discuss? Tiamut^talk 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you can also try changing a little and make your own suggestion if you have one (after I make my change) instead of a full revert. I'm still having some of the old disputes but I'm thinking that we're at a state where we can work nicely together without getting overly upset. *crossing fingers* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I'll send you a notice when I make the edit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Al Ameer son, I'm requesting a clarification for removal of "Mujahidin" from the see also section. We're trying to find consensus for a while now on how to distinguish between fedayeen and mujahideen on this article and my suggestion was the one you removed without participating on the discussions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm so sorry. I actually read the discussion previously and completely didn't pay attention when I removed it. I'll put it back immediately. Sorry for any misunderstandings. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New Image

this image: [18] is a bit cryptic.

what does it mean "self-made"... where and when was it taken? is it scanned from somewhere or did you attend a rally somewhere. Once these questions are answered, I'd be happy to crop the image to it's borders and even fix up the levels/histogram a little. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was taken in Lebanon during a rally in the 1970s. It belongs to a friend of mine and I need to ask them about the exact date and get back to you. Tiamut^talk 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

coolio. when you add the details, let me know and i'll fixup the image a tad. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How's the image input gathering going on? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures were taken on 1 January 1979 at a rally in Beirut for different Palestinian fedayeen groups. Tiamut^talk 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it say Fatah or Fetah? Any idea on who's the photographer? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be spelled either Fateh or Fatah. Though I do know who the photographer is, they do not want to be credited by name at the present time. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to fix it or the file will be deleted [19]. would be a shame after i cropped and cleaned it some. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to Wiki Commons, explaining the situation. The photos have never been published previously and were part of a private collection, until the author released them to me for upload into the public domain. I hope that settles the problem. Thanks for cropping them. Tiamut^talk 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Its been 7 days... image might get speedyed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its been 14 days... Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see the issue was resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Liberation Army

Could some double-check the exact wording in Aburish, Said K. (1998). From Defender to Dictator. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.101-102.? I cut 'Turkish Liberation Army' out of the listing of international groups. There was no group by this name, there was a People's Liberation Army of Turkey, but there were many splits in the Turkish hard left at the time, so it is necessary to be very specific on the exact identity of the group. --Soman (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It says the the less well-known guerrillas of the Turkish Liberation Army and Colombian, Nicaraguan and Armenian groups. Regardless of origin, sponsorship, political direction, or connection with international terror groups, all guerrilla groups operated under the umbrella of the PLO. The last bit talks about the PFLP and DFLP which he mentions previously. Aburish misspells several names of organizations so the group you listed above is probably what he intended. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ansar

There should be a mention of quat al-ansar (see Jordanian Communist Party article) in the article. At the moment, I cannot find a good source for it though. --Soman (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Editorializing"

per the following diff: "editorializing from Freedman"

Source text:

• Disagreement on the meaning of a "secular, democratic, nonsectarian state" has been clearly evident within fedayeen ranks, with some groups striving to give the concept a meaningful content and others choosing to use it merely as a slogan for assuaging world opinion. See, for example, ...

I've seen previous sources and disagree with this edit. However, I'd be willing to change my perspective if editors can provide a source quote from which you gather this to indeed be "editorializing from Freedman".
Cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the other sources who use the word secular do so without qualification and it is only Freedman who claims that this may have been merely a slogan for some, I don't agree with emphasizing Freedman's opinion of this matter in the introduction. As you can see, I've retained your removal of the word secular from the sentence above, and merely removed Freedman's unattributed opinion from the end of the sentence I edited. It now only includes secular as part of the "proclaimed" goals of the fedayeen. That most accurately reflects the sum of all sources without unduly privileging or highlighting Freedman's position in the introduction. It is though discussed in further detail below. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No rhetorics please, provide a source quote from which you gather this to indeed be "editorializing from Freedman". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I have no idea how you can consider what you wrote to be a good faith response to what I took some time to explain above. We don't need a source that says that Freedman is editorializing. We reviewed multiple sources above that stated without equivocation that the fedayeen were a secular movement. The only source to question the degree of committment to the proclaimed secular vision of the fedayeen was Freedman. As such, and as I stated above, highlighting just his opinion on this subject in the introduction comes off as "editorializing" and WP:UNDUE highlighting. Currently, the intro text states only that secularism was one of the proclaimed goals of the fedayeen, a point even Freedman agrees is true. Where Freedman differs from the others in his questioning of the degree of commitment to secularism among some fecdayeen, this opinion of his is elucidated at greater length in the body of the article. I hope this responds fully to the concerns you have raised. Tiamut^talk 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that your responses did not answer my points at all since your position was based on WP:SYN and misreading of source material. Per WP:CIV, please be cooperative and re-make your points by proper use of the sources, not by personal commentary and WP:OWN behavior.

Meantime, I'm being fully cooperative while "the wrong version" is on the article as current lead sources only support the text I've written in rather than your omission.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't change your perceptions and our editing relationship is obviously pretty badly damaged. So I suggest that to break the impasse we always seem to arrive at, that you ask for a 3O again on the difference between your version and mine. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

The source does not specify that it was the "secular part" that causes disagreement. On the contrary, it says little about that, while focusing on the disputes regarding a "democratic" state. As such, it's use in the article was misleading. He's a notable author and the work was published by a reputable university press, so the work itself is without a doubt a reliable source. It would be fine, in the body of the article, to note that Freedman states there were plain disagreements over the ideal of a democratic state and the inclusion of Jews. The lede should follow the body of the article. If there is a dispute over the lede, the content discussion should focus on how to include the information in the main body of the article. An article's lede should not be the focus place of content disputes, but (as much as possible) rather simply summarize the article. Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3O. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You can always return the favor by giving a few yourself. RfC and editor review could usually use a few more responses too. :) Be well. Vassyana (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration

The transliteration of the plural form seems a little off. It is written as "fidā'īyun" but the Arabic word reads as "fidā'iyūn". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.119.145 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Leila Khaled cover.jpg

The image Image:Leila Khaled cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)