Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination)

Just a note to everyone — the closing admin has requested a review of his closure at WP:AN. If you have comments, please express them there. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That discussion can be found at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

I'm closing this immediately as a keep. The assertion that it is not used is conradicted by the evidence. The assertion that it is primarily used by people of a particular political orientation may be true, but that only some people in the world use it is not a reason for deletion. The assertion that the phrase itself is an expression of intolerance is not a reason for deletion--WP is not censored. The reason for the early close is a combination of SNOW and IAR, in order to avoid disruptive expressions of racism.  DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * note: My close was reverted by a participant in the discussion; I have restored it. Further discussion belongs elsewhere. I remind everyone, however, that Discretionary sanctions apply to this subject.  DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

After Saturday Comes Sunday
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No or little notability, Biased sourced, Previous AfD closed by same user who created article, see Talk page for more reasons Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There are multiple reasons for deleting this article.  First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but there is hardly any more to be said except to report its alleged meaning.  Second, even though there are many mentions of the phrase to be found out there, they are inevitably claims by political writers who just repeat the story.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody has found a single web page, or a single book, where the phrase is used with its alleged purpose.  Nor has anyone produced a single photo of this phrase that is allegedly on walls all over the place.  Can you find an article in a respected newspaper where the journalist reports personally hearing it or seeing it?  The only actual evidence of this phrase's existence produced so far is the article in Folklore found by me, where the author documents it as a Christian saying, not the Islamist saying as the blogosphere claims, whose most recent citation is 44 years old. Third, there are hundreds of political slogans whose use is much more prevalent but where are the articles on them?  Search for "death to Arabs".  Consider Yes We Can which is only a redirect despite being vastly better attested and having interesting known history.  Zerotalk 14:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking at the first time this was nominated for deletion Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday in 2011, have to agree with this argument by that resulted in a quick keep result: "The stated deletion reasons are flatly false. The term gets 38,000 hits [now 78,000+] on the internet and 74 hits on Google books [now 108], hence it is notable. Every single statement in the article is referenced to a reliable source - there's nothing there that is original research. This whole nomination is basically drive-by AFD tagging because the nominatior doesn't like the subject matter.... Raul654 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2011" -- Agree 100%! Hence there are sufficient WP:V & WP:RS, in a WP:NPOV context, that make this WP:N. In fact this article at this time is only basically a WP:STUB that could use much more elaboration. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of these google hits are just mirrors for the Wikipedia article. Another one is referring to the rejoicing of Jesus on Sunday after his torture on Saturday, a completely different context than the one used here!!! Again, the interpretation alleged here is from Israeli (or pro-Israeli) political writers, and so is the voting here. We need some more neutral opinions and evidence of this interpretation as Zero0000 pointed out above. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Amr ibn Kulthoum: Thank you for your feedback. Of course, the Google hits are rough and include mirroring, but they nevertheless do convey the myriad other sources that refer to this term. Not sure why you think that Zero0000 is "neutral" while others who merely disagree with his reasoning are not so. Your slurs against "Israeli (or pro-Israeli) political writers" are not appreciated and smack of violating WP:NPA and crossing the border of WP:BATTLEGROUND and you would be wise to retract those accusations ASAP because WP policies and guidelines are being followed here. Feel free to refute points by citing relevant WP policies that would be a lot more constructive than resorting to "blame the victim" red herring diatribes. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD to reduce the notability of this topic. The same editor has nominated it a second time, so it seems to be a disruptive maneuver. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Do you remember the first nomination? It was closed as malformed after just one comment (the article creator, as I understand). Iselilja (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are saying that Raul654 used his authority to make a supervote of "keep", which is certainly one interpretation of his action. Without trying to determine whether this was the case, I will re-argue my "keep" vote as being based on discussion of the term in many reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=After_Saturday_Comes_Sunday&diff=627708498&oldid=627707915 the diff] of the sources I added. There are yet more sources that could be brought to this article, but this batch suited the purpose of showing the topic notable enough. 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources describing and defining the expression meet the Wikipedia notability standard. The reference provided in the article from Mother Jones, which uses and defines the phrase in an article about Hanan Ashrawi, is surely not coming "from Israeli (or pro-Israeli) political writers". Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Although published in Mother Jones, the story is written by Israel Amrani, and Amrani (NOT Ashrawi) inserts this comment in a story about peace talks between PLO and Israel out of nowhere to make his point that Christians feel threatened by Muslims, when Ashrawi's sister is married to a Muslim man (in the same story). Hamas never said such a thing, and if you disagree please show me the evidence. Again, this sentence with this interpretation exists only in the imagination of pro-Israeli political writers. PLEASE READ the COMMENT at the bottom of ISRAEL AMRANI's STORY about this "famous" saying.

I quote: ""I seriously question the ability of someone with a name like Israel Amrani to write a neutral unbiased article on a subject such as Hanan Ashrawi!?!

"After Saturday comes Sunday" is a not famous Muslim saying at all! If anything it seems to have been made up for the purposes of this article. Unlike the West, which is just learning about so-called multiculturalism now, most Arab mainly-Muslim communities in the Middle East have managed to retain and coexist with their Ara- Christian and Jewish members fairly easily for the past 1400 years! This is especially so in pre-1948 Palestine which before the establishment of the racist state of Israel had a population was approximately 35% percent Palestinian-Christian!"" Quote ended. Please do your homework before commenting. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My research shows that the phrase was observed in the mid-1940s, as reported in the 1950s. So the phrase was not "made up for the purposes of this article." Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What are your research sources? Again writers of the same political affiliations and agenda. How about an interpretation referring to the crucifixion of Jesus? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE to closing admin: Anyone, as User Amr ibn Kulthoum in this case, who uses highly-charged pejorative words and phrases like "racist state of Israel"; "the imagination of pro-Israeli political writers"; "writers of the same political affiliations and agenda"; "Unlike the West, which is just learning about so-called multiculturalism now" should actually be banned or blocked for inciting WP:BATTLEGROUND and violating WP:NPOV, period, and should certainly NOT be nominating articles for deletion based on an unashamedly biased, openly hostile and alarmingly narrow POV. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you didn't read my post, you rather picked what you wanted to read. Those words you are putting in my mouth are just a QUOTE from a comment on the story by Israel Amrani. I think you should be banned for the exact same reason you are using to attack me. Typical pathetic fear speech and typical personal attacks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right-O, Amr ibn Kulthoum, the usual, "kill the messenger" 'cause you hate the message. I read what you wrote and the way you wrote it and how you wrote it and how you are communicating with everyone here, especially with those you deem to be below contempt as you act as the self-appointed "neutral" (ha!) "witness, judge, jury & executioner" not a pretty sight to behold, and it ain't "only" a "quote" -- unless I am getting senile or something! Do you even realize that words have meanings?? Not sure what makes you tick! Cool it WP:SPIDERMAN! IZAK (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It's a term that appears to have some history to it and there do appear to be several reliable secondary sources to justify a notability claim. It's evidently not a WP:DICDEF. No point in rehashing the previous AfD, which was procedurally problematic (and the ghits argument is not in itself a good one). The religion of the people writing the sources is not of much consequence so long as it's published in a reliable source (and/or that person is a reliable source). If you feel the article is imbalanced because of it, then fix it, but that's not a reason to delete. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rhododendrites, Again this is not a dictionary. The religion definitely does not matter in this respect. However, this is a very sensitive issue and the political affiliation/belief of your source does matter, especially when there is no single material evidence of the alleged interpretation of this "famous saying", and almost all these third-party sources used in the article are opinion articles/stories and of the same political affiliation/origin. If you go through the Talk page for this article, almost everyone there is questioning its existence and origin, as it didn't really sound familiar to them. At best, it might have some "weak" notability, and definitely not as an Arabic slogan, and will take more than meaning (see above), hence no need for it to stay. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Rhododendrites. I am not convinced that editors on the talk page questioning "its existence and origin" is a reason to delete.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The phrase does seem to have some traction, unfortunately not always as in the form of the title of this article. It seems to be used more as a handy way of presenting some sort of domino theory of Islamic fundamentalism than as a standalone concept on its own (cf. ). Presenting it as an article is a sort of regentspark (comment) 21:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Occasional attacks on Christian property, the distribution of placards, and the writing of Muslim slogans on Christian churches leave no doubt about the nature of the future Christian life under a Muslim fundamentalist rule. From time to time the slogan 'After Saturday comes Sunday' is heard, meaning that having dealt with the Jews the Christians' turn will come too." Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Says who? A Pro-Israeli writer claims Christians are threatened by Muslims. Very credible, Any conflict of interest by any chance??!! Bravo for the example. BTW, this is also the case with some votes on this page) Brilliant!! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please rein yourself in. You don't understand COI and in particular you seem to think that others have one but you don't. You come across as anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and I'm afraid anti-Jewish as well (given that User:عمرو بن كلثوم has "Control over the US and the World "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Banker James Warburg, February 17, 1950, testifying before the U.S. Senate)" at the top - whatever your reason for having that on your user page, it's provocative and probably should be removed, but that's a subject for discussion elsewhere, just mentioning it to show that you yourself have a very strong POV yhere. Having a strong POV on an issue doesn't produce a conflict of interest. If it did, we wouldn't allow Jews to write about the Torah or Muslism about the Qu'aran. In any case, it's a sad fact that Muslims have been threatened and killed by Christians and vice versa. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another source: "At the same time, some Christian Arabs evidently fear the envy of their neighbours. Some Christians arc said to have been told by Muslims that if the Arabs won the Six Day War, the Christian houses would be given to Muslims. An Arabic-speaking Jew claimed that Christian Arabs had told him that Muslims, in June 1967, were saying: ‘After Saturday, comes Sunday* (after £he Jews are taken care of, then the Christians). The expression of such feelings of distrust are only one part of the Christian-Muslim relationship, but while it may not be a majority sentiment, its existence should not be completely ignored."Middle Eastern Studies Volume 8, Issue 3, 1972 "Some aspects of ethnic stereotype content in the Galilee: a trial formulation". Note that this is another source stating that Christians say this. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And that example just illustrates the problem. Some unnamed Jew said that some unnamed Christians told him that some unnamed Muslims used to say something.  The amazing thing is that you think this is a source at all. Zerotalk 09:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No good faith from you either, eh? And you must have a different definition of source than I do. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you are arguing in good faith; I just happen to believe you are wrong. As for your second sentence, one thing I require of sources is that they assert the truth of the claim under discussion.  This article mentions a belief as an example of a "feeling of distrust" but the author only calls it a "claim" and never says it is true.  The whole article is about urban myths and stereotypes that different cultural groups hold about each other. Zerotalk 14:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can say what you want, put the words in the mouths of others, and when they disagree, they become anti-this and anti-that. Everyone here has interests and beliefs, and almost no one is neutral, at least I am not hiding mine. For yourself and others voting/commenting here, you could tell from the type of contributions you have. My user page has sourced quotes, and Wikipedia is full of such user pages, and this discussion is about an alleged sentence with an alleged interpretation put forward by a group of political writers of the same political orientation, with NO FIRST-HAND SOURCE or BACKING. This discussion is NOT about me or my user page. PERIOD. I don't know how you became an Admin here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, You spared me lots of words and explanation in your last comment. Simply, ALL your sources are coming from Jews claiming they heard it from Christians. Why don't you just put it this bluntly in the article, plain and simple. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)::You're shooting your own case down by intemperate insinuations, and make editors like myself think more of defending the bona fides of people you attack (Doug for instance), than judging the merits of the article.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani, I am not sure whether your above comment was addressed to me. I don't think I attacked anyone here and I don't think this discussion should be about me. Anyway, I think you should see Dougweller's comment here justifying/defending this racist comment posted on my user page. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I was reacting to your comment " It is interesting to see the two authors who claim the saying and interpret it are ... Guess what? ZIONISTS. Hhhhmmm. Interesting." "Zionists" looks racist to me in the context of your other posts and your user page. Obviously we disagree on this. I have never defended a racist comment, and have blocked racists and ethnic warriors of all persuasions. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'ALL your sources are coming from Jews claiming they heard it from Christians.' Can't you see how that reads? I don't care what the ethnicity of the persons writing sources is. Ethnicity is bullshit to me, I disown whatever ones I was born to, but many find it absolutely fundamental and read others that way. You must look at other things: competence in the matter, quality of the source, scholarly background, and peer reputation. I'm disgusted at what I read here, like yourself. It is offensive, like much else one sees here and in the world. But a lot of things I am required by the rules to respect in edits (the due representation of all opinions of note) disgust me. I can't let my personal feelings get in the way. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nishidani for your comment/clarification. I fully agree that ethnicity/religion does not really matter in this (Ilan Pappe for example). The I borrowed the word Jew in my comment from Dougweller's comment/story above: 'An Arabic-speaking Jew claimed that Christian Arabs had told him that Muslims ...'. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked all my sources, but that doesn't affect notability in any case. My RfA, by the way, was unanimous. And yes,there are other user pages with material that breaks our userpage guidelines at WP:UPNOT. Notability doesn't require "first-hand" sources. User:Zero0000, thanks for accepting I'm arguing in good faith. But I think that you are wrong about sources asserting the truth of a claim - that's not in WP:RS. A lot of sources we use speculate, etc. And of course we have RSN if you want to raise a query about a source. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, publishers of "Democratic Palestine", aren't Jewish. They're the ones cited at The PFLP's Changing Role in the Middle East. Routledge. "29. Democratic Palestine warned that: Hamas could serve to distort the image of the intifada and the Palestinian national movement in the eyes of the world. To further illustrate the real face of Hamas, it is sufficient to point to some of Hamas' seemingly silly but actually dangerous mottos, like: ‘the Quran is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’. Another slogan, 'After Saturday comes Sunday*, could be understood as an indication that after finishing with the Jews, Hamas will turn to the Christians. How can such mottos serve the Palestinian struggle?". Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is a piece of shit, which does not mean it might not have prospects of improvement. I say 'piece of shit' because, as a philologist, usage fascinates me, and I would be interested in articles that track usage. It is a variant on First they came ..., and a comparison between the work done on that phrase by Pastor Niemoller, and this, shows that editors have no other focus that using it as a document to attack and insinuate. This one is focused on highlighting its usage exclusively in otherwise undefining, generic sources that say it's used here and there in the Arab world. Hamas gets it in the neck, though Christians in Gaza under Hamas make the same complaints Christians in Bethlehem do against Israel. How this developed badly can be imagined by analogy, thinking of antisemites writing up the Birkat ha-Minim to note down every time on pious Jewish lips the relevant benediction in the Amidah cursing Christians and calling for their extinction is uttered. Well, it's uttered three times every day by observant Jews, and you can no doubt ruin that article by scouring the net to get everything that might highlight this,(far more current in usage than this phrase appears to be) much in the way this article tries to pile up a case for the idea that in this occasional phrase, the meaning is: 'Only Jews stand between us and extinction by the Arab world'. In short the page is not interested in tracking down the history of the idiom, objectively, but to issue a warning. Well done, whoever worked this up.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a mess I agree. Which is one reason I suggested taking it to AfD. I still haven't !voted as I'm hoping some sources can be found that say more than "it's been heard". The PFLP quote does a bit more being at least commentary about the saying rather than just repeating it. I meant to mention that it was an obvious variant on "First they came" although that was aimed at bigots, etc, not at any specific religious group. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Has anyone access to the precise paragraph in Shimon L. Khayyat's article? The only evidence we have for its traditional usage is this paper. If this is a proverb or idiomatic, it surely must be listed in Arabic language sources. On a topic like this one would expect, this being an encyclopedia, at least three scholarly sources on provenance, usage, and contemporary recycling. All I can see are polemical newspaper sourcees trying to suggest that this reflects an 'Arab mentality' of trying to rid the world of Jews and Christians. I'm tending to think that it's fine to illustrate usage on a phrase like this, as long as the unpolemical, philological historical groundwork on origins has been done. On the face of it, to Christian ears unfamiliar with this usage, the phrase does not sound offensive, for example. Saturday memorializes grief at Christ's crucification, putatively the day before, and Sunday connotes both the Resurrection, and, with news of it, celebration, together with the Biblical injunction of rest from the labour of creation. Cf.After Saturday comes Sunday,'Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its on Jstor I just don't have a time to delete my IP before sending to you but I have found a source that specifically talks about it usage in Arabic language Newspaper footnote 3--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hamas 1991, one episode. Newspapers love that, I guess. The essential point is not its occasional use in newspapers, but when it became a meme esp. in outlets like Fox news etc and where it came from, and its frequency. There is zero evidence of Palestinian Muslims plotting genocide of Christian communities. You can no more spin that than you can spin the 12 Benediction's recital by Jews as evidence they wish Christian heretics to be exterminated, Use that evidential logic, and you'd get horrific expectations from the silly scrawlings all over Jerusalem's Christian sites re 'Jewish' intentions. Muslims send many of their children to Christian hospitals and schools, and there is no programmatic persecution under Hamas rule, as opposed to the kind of harassment, also given Christian communities by Israeli groups, at times met with by some Christians in Gaza.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that there is such a plot.--Shrike (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that there is such a plot.--Shrike (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article topic is noteable, the article needs respectively needed improvement. It seems to be more of a grape wine slogan in the sense of "first they came" than a often used mural. Furthermore it expresses a recent developement, as Shrike's source confirms that Palestinian Christians like Habash were formerly important for the PLO, but have all reasons now to distrust Hamas or, beware, IS. Serten (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Christians are well-represented in major PNA cities and Fatah, and Christians in Gaza work in Hamas institutions. I know Palestinian Christians who support Hamas. That's just private knowledge, but most of what one reads in generic tabloids has almost zero correspondence with anything one knows of specific communities.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, I havent provided any tabloid so far. please just be so kind to name a dozen leading palestianian christian figures of Hamas, including women. Maybe there are even jewish ones, candidates providing the necessary sacrificium intellectus may include Neturei Karta and Amira Hass but I doubt it. Independent from individual knowledge, the figures are matching the sources I provided: About 10% of 'Palestinians in exile' or 'arab Israelis' are and were christians, but they are nearly extinct in Gaza and lower (about 8%) in the westbank. Serten (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, and in its disinterest in the real story of the slogan, mounted to push a POV meme.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)'I havent provided any tabloid so far.' I was referring to the article.
 * (b) 'a dozen leading palestianian christian figures of Hamas.' What has that to do with the price of fish?
 * (c) there is no demonstrated nexus between the loss of Christian Palestinians from that territory and 'Muslim fanaticism.' It is impelled by the economic strangulation imposed on all Palestinians, in most sources I am familiar with. They emigrate for a better economic future for their families.
 * (d) Reflex associations that Hamas = Christian panic are nonsense (within Palestine. What evangelical Americans may think is incomprehensible to most non-American Christians). The small Christian community in Gaza distinguished itself by sheltering thousands of their Muslim neighbours. Of course there are problems: obscure salafi groups probably have been behind several incidents, but when a Fatah-linked militia in Gaza threatened to attack Christian churches to retaliate against that farcial Danish cartoonist's depiction of Muhammad, Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas stood with Fr Manuel Masallam in front of the Catholic Church and promised Hamas militants would defend it.(Alain Epp Weaver, 'The crescent and the cross are the marks on my hands,' in Paul S Rowe, John H.A. Dyck, Jens Zimmermann (eds.) Christians and the MIddle East Conflict, Routledge 2014 pp.137ff. pp.145-6) The more one studies details, the more disgraceful is the general reportage of conflict, and the uses of caricature to dumbdown very complex questions in order to set public opinion into a cast-iron mould of pro/contra. This article is a good example of engineering to reinforce prejudice by a stereotypical buttress. The function of wiki must be to give encyclopedic coverage without allowing editors to abuse its officers in order to spin history to some unilateral polemical end. You can only do this by adding as many details as possible to show how complex the issues are, far more complex than soundbite reportage allows.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As said, you provided proof that PLO was able to integrate christians, including clergy, Hamas is far from that. Something like "there is no demonstrated nexus between the loss of Christian Palestinians from that territory and 'Muslim fanaticism'" is sort of, hmmm, contentious. If you can provide the real story, do so, but its not found in the source you provided. But anyway you should refrain from deleting the article. Serten (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per IZAK et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As per a request above, I have posted the text of proverb 58 on page 199 from Khayyat on the articles talk page. I have the entire article (thanks to Wikipedia JSTOR accounts) if there are any other requests which pertain to it. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I assume that the notion sources are coming from Jews claiming they heard it from Christians could be applied as well to most Nobel Prizes, as they have been achieved like that. WP should treat good sources as sources, and the article is on a solid base now. With regard to the topic en detail, it is less about a mural slogan pushed by militant Muslims but more how current fears of arab christians are being expressed. Those christian background arabs had a significant role in the more secular, left leaning PLO, and have had their share of antizionism / antisemitism as well (in the good old Austrian way of "disliking jews more than actually necessary", not in the nazi sense) but always failed to feel at home with nowadays and past jihadies. The article covers that now. Serten (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.