Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiamut (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 6 January 2008 (→Poor presentation of the term). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A fact from Palestinian fedayeen appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on November 9 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/November.

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 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 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 13:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Well now we have User Tewfik (talk · contribs) who has moved 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 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 " 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 - - 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 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 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 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 " or " 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 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 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 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 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 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 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. why are you changing the arabic translation and revving up the "resistance" terminology? Jaakobou 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 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 . 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 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 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:

"](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=]|year=1993|page=43|isbn=019917170X}}</ref>)

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 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 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 - , meaning that page 49 is missing, and i request source related information here. Jaakobou 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Defunct Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist