Talk:Palestinian fedayeen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestinian fedayeen is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
A fact from Palestinian fedayeen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 9, 2007.
Wikipedia


Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Nov 2007 - Jan 2008


Contents

[edit] 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. Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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? Tiamuttalk 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)

[edit] 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. [1] - "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. [2] - "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. JaakobouChalk 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? Tiamuttalk 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". JaakobouChalk Talk 10:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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? JaakobouChalk 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). JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] communal editing

in the spirit of communal editing, i request we avoid quick/blind reverting of the edits of one another. [3]

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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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' JaakobouChalk 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 JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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? JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) p.s. I just now noticed this - 'Palestinian Militants'. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please address the raised suggestions. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

suggestion/question: should i open an RfC regarding the issue? JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I need your consent for future reference. JaakobouChalk 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? Tiamuttalk 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* JaakobouChalk Talk 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I'll send you a notice when I make the edit. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. JaakobouChalk 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)

[edit] New Image

this image: [4] 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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
coolio. when you add the details, let me know and i'll fixup the image a tad. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
How's the image input gathering going on? JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Should it say Fatah or Fetah? Any idea on who's the photographer? JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to fix it or the file will be deleted [5]. would be a shame after i cropped and cleaned it some. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Its been 7 days... image might get speedyed. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Its been 14 days... JaakobouChalk Talk 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see the issue was resolved. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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. JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No rhetorics please, provide a source quote from which you gather this to indeed be "editorializing from Freedman". JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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, JaakobouChalk 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. Tiamuttalk 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. JaakobouChalk 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)