Talk:Palestinian fedayeen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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? JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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".
-- JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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). JaakobouChalk 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? JaakobouChalk Talk 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
p.s. why are you changing the arabic translation and revving up the "resistance" terminology? JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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). JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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" (Hebrew: he‎ [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.
-- JaakobouChalk 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.

-- JaakobouChalk 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.

-- JaakobouChalk 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:

And:

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. Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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.

Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff meeting your request. Tiamuttalk 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) JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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". JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)