Talk:After Saturday comes Sunday

A slogan I have never heard

And I'm a Christian married to a Muslim who lives in Nazareth. Are there more sources to attest to the notability of this supposed slogan? Please further note that one of the sources cited is ambivalent about the meaning about the phrase.

It says: "After Saturday comes Sunday" is a famous Muslim saying, sometimes interpreted to mean that after the fundamentalists finish the Jews, they'll deal with the Christians.

Note, it says "sometimes interpreted to mean". By whom exactly? Like I said, I've never heard such a slogan that this author describes as "famous". I've asked my friends and family, they don't know it either. I guess its a famous slogan in America?!? Tiamut^talk 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard about this phrase (il-yom is-sabt w bukra il-had), but never ever heard anyone say it. It might have been said at a certain time in a certain context against Christians, but I cannot find any reliable source that says that. What I can say is it is an Arabic phrase, as the article mentions, just as "I want hummus and falafel", which I don't see the need to write an article for. I certainly don't see how this could warrant its own article. Having a Wikipedia article on this obscure slogan (whether real, made up, fringe, or mainstream), is like having an article on "Death to the Arabs" or "Mohammad is a pig" (common slogans against Palestinians and Muslims among Israeli extremists), or the more mainstream "dirty Arab", or any other racist or stupid chant or slogan by anyone. Even "yes we can" which is much more well known and documented phrase does not have (and rightly so) its own article. On the other hand, I have found a couple of articles mentioning that phrase (or a variant thereof) in Arabic: here and here. --Fjmustak (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that Death to America (a popular slogan at certain times and places as attested in many reliable sources) is a redirect to Anti-Americanism. (And even Just do it is an entry about a music album.) Tiamut^talk 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have lived in Jerusalem for 22 years and visited Bethlehem several times. I am virtually fluent in Arabic and can certainly read graffiti. I have NEVER seen this slogan on any wall and never heard it in conversation. I am also at a loss to understand why a comment in a presumably slanted political article warrants its own Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.104.29 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, This "Arabic Phrase" is in no way a phrase any arab recognises. it is quite ridiculous and should be deleted. There are no arabic references to this "phrase" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingp (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks that maybe this article was created to mock Rebecca Black's song Friday that contains the line "Tomorrow is Saturday and Sunday comes afterwards.": that song was produced in late 2010 and released as a single in March 2011, while this article was created in July 2009, so there is no connection. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Rebecca Black's song was created to mock this phrase! TFighterPilot (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's real, it doesn't deserve it's own article

At least until "Khyber Khyber ya Yahud jaish Mu7amed saya3ud" gets one. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• The only place on the web that contains that phrase is this page. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• This article is a complete scam. I am an Arab, and I never heard about such a saying. Even if there is such a phrase, why should it be interpreted this way? It is interesting to see the two authors who claim the saying and interpret it are ... Guess what? ZIONISTS. Hhhhmmm. Interesting. I am nominating this page for deletion. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And that is a really bad idea. An Arab attacking editors for being Jews? Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Which editor did I attack? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I also surveyed my Arab friends and they all deny having ever heard it. It is clearly rare and almost all the appearances on the web are from pro-Israeli sources. Zero^talk 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? Something that is sourced to pro-Israeli sources is not notable? See [1]. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

They are simply BIASED, same as this article. Heard of NPOV? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gee, I only have about 128,000 edits more than you do, what do you think? NPOV doesn't say we can't use sources with a point of view. And you seem to have decided that any sources that supports Israel in some way must be biased. Although I don't actually think we are talking about pro-Israel sources on my link - perhaps Jewish sources, but I can't read your mind so I can't be sure why you think they are biased. If they were pro-Arab would they also be biased? Hm, I'd really like an answer to that. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can use biased sources, but at the same time political commentators and such aren't optimal for an article on linguistic/Arab culture. I checked the first source which is from a journal in folklore and attests that this phrase has been used among Christian Arabs. The source mentions this phrase among many other phrases, so that article in itself doesn't imply that the phrase necessarily is notable for an encyclopedia (but can of course contribute to notability). The sources that attest that the phrase is used among Muslims seems to be more political of nature, and whether some random observations of a phrase by political commentators confer notability and whether these sources form the basis of a good article is not totallys self-evident for me. It's a sensitive theme (that Muslims plan to first murder all Jews and then all Christians) and it's obvious that such a topic can be misused, so good sources, careful review of notability and careful presentation of the topic if notable is adament. I feel there is a lack of substantial, analytical sources. Iselilja (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a very sensitive subject, I agree, and needs to be sourced properly. I think among the Google book sources I've provided some better sources can be found. If anyone wants to take this to AfD I don't mind although I don't think it will be deleted.

The folklore article says (in a footnote) "58. min sallaf issabt leqi il-hadd qiddimfih, 'When Saturday is gone, one will find Sunday.' Cf. Freyha, no. 3826. Said by Christians: since the Jews are now persecuted, it is as inevitable that the Christians' turn will come next as it is that Sunday will follow Saturday. Variant: sallif issabt bitlaqi il-hadd qiddimak, 'Let Saturday pass first, then you will find Sunday before you.' Cf. Freyha, no. 1916; Feghali, no. 1504. Cf. the Iraqi variant: 'ugb il-sabit lahhad yiTF 'After Saturday comes Sunday.' The Egyptian variant is: man qadam (i)l-sabt yliqiT (a)l-hadd 'udd'mui, 'Whoever lets Saturday go first, will see Sunday in front of him.' Cf. 'Abd al-Salam, p. 20; Freyha, nos. 1916, 3826." Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I grew up in Palestine, but never heard of such saying, and most of the contributions of this talk page are along the same line. A previously AfD was prematurely closed by the user who created this very same page. Having said that, the saying may exist, but definitely not in the meaning provided in this article. What comes to my mind is something like "wait for tomorrow and you will get it", or "make sure today is gone and tomorrow will be better". This is something that HAS NOTHING TO DO with Jews or christians, and I don't know why/how Israeli writers are interpreting it, with no single evidence (e.g., graffitti, rally signs, Arabic document, etc.) of this interpretation. In either case, it is a saying with no natability. A saying like "mavet la'aravim" (Death to Arabs) is definitely a million times more notable. See here or just google (Death to arabs in Hebrew). Arab Christians see zionists and Jewish extremists as their first threat see here, not non-existent slogans like the subject of this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The most notable thing about the many references to this saying is that they are hearsay. More parrots does not equal more evidence. Where is the textual evidence for it? Can you find a single web page, or a single book, where it is used with its alleged purpose, rather than just reported as something someone else uses? Where are the photos of the graffiti that is allegedly all over the place? What Muslim can be documented as using it? Can you find an article in a respected newspaper where the journalist reports personally hearing it or seeing it? It smells to high heaven. Amin is entirely correct that sayings like "Death to Arabs" are far better attested. Zero^talk 13:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Proper closure?

Contrary to this [see top of page —editor] template, the AfD listing was immediately closed by the same editor who created this article. In my opinion that closure was improper and should be disregarded. Zero^talk 06:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest uou nominate it for deletion again. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also "first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people"

Searching for this gives more sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So what, a handful of Jewish/Israeli writers claiming this meaning. Show me an evidence of this interpretation! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to do that. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. We go by what the sources say. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This academic source says its widely seen on the walls in Muslim neighborhoods [2]--Shrike (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is another interesting source [3] the footnote is interesting too[4]--Shrike (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Also this search provide even more sources [5] of course each source should be checking separately are there is some false positives.--Shrike (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Text of Khayyat

There was a request on the AfD talk page for the actual text of the Khayyat article, which now follows (proverb 58, page 199):

min sallaf issabt leqi il-hadd qiddimfih, 'When Saturday is gone, one will find Sunday.' Cf. Freyha, no. 3826.

Said by Christians: since the Jews are now persecuted, it is as inevitable that the Christians' turn will come next as it is that Sunday will follow Saturday.

Variant: sallif issabt bitlaqi il-hadd qiddimak, 'Let Saturday pass first, then you will find Sunday before you.' Cf. Freyha, no. 1916; Feghali, no. 1504. Cf. the Iraqi variant: 'ugb il-sabit lahhad yiTF 'After Saturday comes Sunday.' The Egyptian variant is: man qadam (i)l-sabt yliqiT (a)l-hadd 'udd'mui, 'Whoever lets Saturday go first, will see Sunday in front of him.' Cf. 'Abd al-Salam, p. 20; Freyha, nos. 1916, 3826.

I hope this helps the process in determining whether or not this article should be deleted or remain. -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Its been kept, but thank you anyway.- Serten (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change to article lede

From Khayyat, it seems that the original use of the phrase was not as an Islamist militant slogan, but as a warning or lament by the Arrb Christian population. It may well have been adopted in the last two or three decades as a slogan, but to keep the current lede we would not only need documentation that the current predominant usage is in terms of militancy, but that that usage has the same history as the Christian-centric version, which I haven't seen. I'd suggest changing the lede to something more like:

After Saturday Comes Sunday is an Arab Proverb representing Middle Eastern Christian fear that it is as inevitable that Arab Christians will be persecuted by Arab Muslims after the Jews, as Sunday follows Saturday in the days of the week.[cited to Khayyat] It is also a play on words as the Christian day of rest is Sunday and the Jewish day of rest is Saturday, so that Saturday and Sunday themselves are used as metonymies for the practitioners of the religions. In recent times, the phrase has seen use as a militant Islamic slogan through which Muslims are actively warning Christians that they are "next" after the Muslims are "finished" with the Jews.[Needs a source]

Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the intention, but think that deletion of militant was enough to fullfill it.

After Saturday Comes Sunday (Arabic: ba'd as-sabt biji yom al-ahad‎) is foremost an Arabic slogan and proverb. The arab version has been used among or against Arab Christians fearing or threatening them that they are going to share the fate of Jews in Arab and Muslim countries.

Even if its mostly used among arab christians, its still an arab proverb. The current lede is "Omakompatible" (German for "allows Grandma to grasp it") while your proposal is possible but rather clumsy an in some aspect too detailed for a lede. Serten (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, it looks like a Hebrew/Jewish proverb, not an Arab one!!! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal impressions don't count. Try to avoid them. A respectable source provides the original words in Arabic and its regional forms. If you wish to help follow that trail in an arabic-language source check.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, upon your request, I have googled Shimon Khayyat's text (sallif issabt bitlāqī il-ḥadd qiddāmak: 'Let Saturday pass first, then you will find Sunday before you.'), in Arabic letters "قدم السبت تلاقي الحد قدامك", this is what I found. Basically, as I suspected before, it's not very common as you will see from the results, and it's just another way to say "You reap what you sow)or 'What you reap on Saturday will harvest on Sunday'. I don't know where this Jewish/Christian context came from!!! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that effort. The problem we have is that we only have one scholarly source, and that in turn simply registers Arabic variants of a phrase, without further comment. I suspect, but suspicion has no intrinsic value as an editorial frame of mind unless it wooes curiosity and, on mating, produces the offspring of reliable scholarship. Testimonies from forums are not, however intelligent, usable as sources. What we need is, in lieu ofsome lucky strike in Western articles and books, someone who can access competent Arabic scholars or their works to illuminate the scarce material we have here, i.e., to throw light on each of those regional idioms, and gloss where they came from or/and what they contextually mean. I think from the instances given (I know of scholars whose POV is obvious but whose integrity as scholars is unimpeached, who assign to the idiom the meaning Khayyat assigns to the phrase, and it is not a meaning invented by 'Jews'. It is the way groups of Arab Christians understand or employ it. So I don't think it fruitful to suggest that this is all misreportage). Scholarship is one place where one should wash one's dirty linen in public, without fear of the bitchiness and prejudices of those who mock one's openness. It's a pity we cannot yet clarify all this, whatever the consequences.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

the explanation as it being arab as of the language of arab christians works best. Amr, any reason or source why jews should invent it? They have no issue with Supersessionism, thats rather christian. Compare the old joke about a jew complaining to the Lord, that his son became an apostate and Christian, and God father consoling him, "No sweat, do it like me, write a new testimony" Serten (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some friends in Egypt report that they know the phrase with the meaning "what you do today will come back to you tomorrow" (eg. if you help/harm someone today they will help/harm you tomorrow). Better yet, one of them found a source: a book “Folklore Saying” by Ahmed Taymour Pasha, written in the 1940s. I don't have the Arabic name but I'll ask. Amr, can you find it online? Zero^talk 01:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"You must have experienced the gratification some time, that instant feeling of fulfilment at the end of a heated or even moderate debate with a particularly persistent colleague, the moment at which you instinctively decide to bombard her with age-old words of wisdom that prove your point better than anything she could have put together." Words of wisdom Service Serten (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zero. This is the only meaning to it in Arabic. Basically "Present your work on Saturday to reap it on Sunday". AGAIN, this saying has nothing to do with Jews or Christians. EVERY ARABIC-SPEAKING editor commenting here has already indicated that. Please hire an Arabic translator to google the words for you in Arabic. You will find no mention of Christians or Jews any where this is used, except for the Israeli/Pro-Israeli sources. And Serten, the reason why zionists and their friends would invent that is pretty obvious I think. To get the sympathy of the Western World in their Propaganda campaign against Arabs/Muslims. This is what this rediculous article is all about. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Zero, thanks for the name. I googled the guy and found the book at [www.4shared.com/get/P6280LAC/__-___.html?simpleLogin=true&startDownload=true]. Sorry, the link is blocked by Wikipedia (4shared.com is on the blacklist). Anyway, I found the saying in the book (Proverb no. 2861-٢٨٦١) Page 504-٥٠٤. I extracted the page and posted it here for your convenience in case anyone wants to use it to seek professional translation. The proverb itself is on the second line of the page (under the heading), and the explanation is the following two lines. The proverb is: It says: ([min qaddam issabt yilqā il-ḥadd qiddāmūh] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)). As Zero said, the author is giving the following meaning: "من قدم شيء التقاه" which literraly means: "This who presents something finds it", meaning you will get the same response as your actions, good for good and bad for bad."

Page 504 of the book "Proverbs in Spoken Arabic" I hope this sheds enough evidence that the context of this proverb has no reference/relation to Jews or Christians. May be these two days are used instead of other days simply beacuse they are shorter to say/write (3 letters each, compared to all other days with 4-6 letters), hence more convenient in a proverb. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What the credentials of the author? In what publishing house it was printed?Moreover the claim of the book goes against all of the WP:RS hence its WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a dictionary of sayings very similar to the three sources cited by Khayyat. The publisher will be identified. It doesn't contradict the other sources either; there is no reason a phrase has to have a single meaning. Nothing fringe about it. Zero^talk 10:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Shrike don't make preemptive challenges based on dislike. The sources we have are mainly journalists waving a cliché, using hearsay. Some, even all, may be right, but the RS aren't of scholarly standards, save one. The subject has been barely broached and to claim a dissonant piece of information is fringe or undue because it contradicts a meme is, frankly, thoughtless policy tag-waving at this point.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What I found out about the author is that he was a famous writer on Arabic Literature who flourished at the end of the 19th century and that a section of the main public library in Cairo is named after him. Here is the Arabic text of the explanation of the saying: هو في معنى قولهم : ( من قدم شيء التقاه ) و قالوا أيضا : ( حط إشى تلقى إشى ) و قد تقدم فى الحاء المهملة , أى المرء مجزى بعمله إن خيرا فخير م إن شرا فشر. (hope that copy-pasted correctly). Zero^talk 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there might be something like a "You must finish what you start" or "In for a penny, in for a pound" proverb. I am quite interested and willing to accept an arab explanation or source, as long you can provide that it is actually about the sunday saturday wording. I do however not believe that it contradicts other interpretation by non muslim arabs - which still exist, thank god. Serten (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A saying may have multiple meanings. Khayyat's version is certainly one, and, as of now, the only one in an English-language scholarly work, I believe. So while we should bring all reliably sourced variants, that is not a reason to remove one such. -- Avi (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the article wins some weight with the right course of developement of meanings being described. I would like to have the arab writing just of the proverb as such being provided, think it owuld be interesting what a google search would result in. Serten (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

In 1940, Walter Clay Lowdermilk noted the alleged proverb in a rather critical review of the White Paper of 1939. He assumed, that similar to the Assyrian genocide and the dire fate of mostly Christian Assyrians in Iraq (compare Iraq Levies) after the British left the former mandate, the Jews in the then Palestine Mandate region 'would be massacred' similarly by Muslims, if left as a minority.

This contains as explained elsewhere, a gross blunder historically, that cannot be allowed to stay on the page until the issue is fixed. The editor introducing it has dismissed requests to do so. If anyone wishes to examine it and make it compatible with wiki's reliability as an encyclopeda, feel welcome to reedit it so that it does not contain the indicated disinformation.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate on the alleged "gross blunder". The Assyrian genocide happened, the fate of mostly Christian Assyrians in Iraq was dire. The assumption, Jews in the then Palestine Mandate region 'would be massacred' by Muslims, if left as a minority without defence is true as well. Just try to read the Hamas charta without prejudice or have a closer look on the background of the IDF respectively its predescessors, which were founded after the Hebron massacre 1929. Finally, the quote is just used to underline the notion, that Lowdermilk was aware of the alleged proverb as early as 1940. Serten (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please try to remember what your interlocutors wrote in earlier discussions, especially when the information they provide is just a day old. Your request for elaboration has already been satisfied. There is nothing 'alleged' about a blunder that confuses a genocide of Christians by Turks ca 1915 before the British Mandate in Iraq, with a series of battles after the expiry of the Mandate, a blunder that magnifies Christian casualties attributable to Assyrian deaths by othr Iraqis in 1933 from 600-3,000 to 80,000. Could I remind you that personal obsessions about Hamas have no value with regard to a discussion of an American land conservationist's ignorance of Iraqi history in 1940. Clichés about the Hamas charta (sic, perhaps a memory there of Catullus?) recycled from tabloid hackwork ignore the curious history of that document, whose position was superceded by specific declarations that Hamas would not attack anyone because of their creed, Jews included, but only if in the case of the latter, the Jew was a Zionist involved in aggression(whether they live up to that, like whether the IDF lives up to its boast of 'purity of arms', is anothr matter). The predecessors of the IDF include HaShomer founded in 1909, and was disbanded and supplanted by the Haganah in 1921, which was formally founded a year earlier June 12, 1920. Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Location of the Assyrian genocide

My use of the assyrian genocide was interpreted as being offensive, I have erased the link to that entry. However you havent provided any reason to leave out the quote of Lowdermilk in the current version, which actually deals with the proverb. Serten (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(A) When serious questions are raised about a passage's veracity, and removed (not excised) to the talk pag for discussion, you're not supposed to just ignore the talk page (which you have) and restore it in some version. You have repeatedly ignored several indications that Lowdermilk's words, and your use of them, refer to a non-fact. I'll repeat in case you can't grasp the elementary facts, but the next time, don't walk past the point.

(B)

He assumed, that similar to the dire fate of mostly Christian Assyrians in Iraq (compare Iraq Levies) after the British left the former mandate, the Jews in the then Palestine Mandate region 'would be massacred' similarly by Muslims, if left as a minority.

That is, to put it politely, clumsy English (similarly . .similarly)

You are requested to tell editors what 'dire fate' was meted out to Christian Assyrians after the expiry of the British Mandate corresponding to Lowdermilk's figure.

To help you figure it out. (i) The British Mandate ovr Iraq ended in 1932. The only possible reference to killings of Assyrian Christians after that expiry ies the Simele massacre of August 1933, where 600 Christians died, according to British figures. Lowdermilk in his wisdom states that 80,000 of that group were massacred. There is no event in post-Mandate Iraq (ca.1933 onwards) down to Lowdermilk's time of writing that warrants such an absurdly wild ballistic ballooning of figures. I've said this now four times, I've asked you to figure out what Lowdermilk's error was, and since you restate from Lowdermilk this as though it were a fact, where it is only a hopeless piece of confusion or fantasy by this soil scientist, out of his depth in history, you are reintroducing into Wikipedia a verifiable falsehood, while refusing to take the objection seriously. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you dont like the wording, improve it. How would you use Lowdermilks assumptions? Second given the experience with actual massacres against Jews and Christians, why do you assume his prediction was wrong? There had been massacres against assyrian and armenian christians and jews in the remnants of the old ottoman empire, see the map. While Lowdermilk didnt differentiate regionally as much as you ask for, he's right as Israel survived via being successfull as a jewish majority society, including a highly professional acriculture and defending its right to exist. Any problems with that, anything about improving the article? Serten (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Clichés. ('Why do you assume his prediction was wrong') Good grief! The only way I can explain what is going on with Lowdermilk is you can't construe precisely the intended meaning of my English. His prediction was based on an extrapolation from a non-existent historical event, and Lowdermilk confused (a) nationalist Turks in a secular republic with an incident carried out by a military thug in the Iraqi army (the counted bodies in Simele were 315, not 600 which refers to the district. Our articles are all fucked up on massascres), and the events of 1915 with the non-event of 1933 and precisely the opposite occurred. You call that a reliable source? All you can use from Lowdermilk is his citation of the phrase for a date of 1940.

As to your grasp of the region's history. Forget it. You don't know it. After the expiry of the British mandate in Palestine, the IDF carried out from 24 (Benny Morris, listing those in those Hebrew archives he could consult) to 68 massacres (Saleh Abdel Jawad), expelled or encouraged to flee another 700,000, among them tens of thousands of Christians, and 11,000 non-combatant Palestinians 'disappeared' from history. No demographer could find them through their diaspora in the camps (Henry Laurens).Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry thats not an answer, on how to use Lowdermilk as a source. Its as well not a generic forum on putting blame on Israel. Serten (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions and 1RR

Reminding editors that this article is under both discretionary sanctions and !RR per 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:LEAD

How does the meaning that not discussed in the article belong to the WP:LEAD?--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about the meaning of a phrase. It seems that your question is actually: why should this page contain material that weakens the purpose of the page (which we all understand). I don't find that to be an acceptable argument. Zero^talk 11:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead_section#Relative_emphasis is quite clear on this we should mention what is widely discussed by WP:RS the movie and the meaning from arab book is not hence its not belong to the lead.--Shrike (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Its better in the full text. I mean the article adresses the symbolic row of order far beyound the arab-israel bullshit, and Shanchez reinterpretation is quite nicely made. Serten (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have access to the following texts?

• Freyha, Anis Freyha: al-'Amth'il al-'ammiyyan al-Lubn-niyyah 'an r'as al-matan, Beirut, 1953, 2 vols.
• Feghali, M.T.: Proverbes et Dictons Syro-Libanais, Paris, 1938
• 'Abd al-salam, Hasan: al-Mathal al-sa'bTwa suluk al-'insan, Cairo, 1970

Khayyat cross-references these texts in his entry. Perhaps they shed more light on the usage? Specifically, Freyha, no. 1916, 3826; Feghali, no. 1504. and 'Abd al-Salam, p. 20 -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My library has Feghali and I will be able to look at it tomorrow. Zero^talk 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so here is entry #1504 in Feghali, exactly the same edition cited by Khayyat. It is in the last two lines on page 347 and the first three lines on page 348 (I joined them). Pluto will correct my translation: "Give to Saturday and Sunday will be ahead of you. For encouraging someone to give service and help someone else. You will be treated well or badly according to your actions." In other words, this is the mundane meaning and nothing about Jews and Christians. Looking again at Khayyat's paper (quoted above), note the liberal use of "Cf." ("compare"). Khayyat is not saying that his sources all support his reading. Perhaps the only source that does is the the one "Freya, no. 3826" appearing in the first line of his entry, but we can't assume even that. I don't have access to Freya's work, but I can get ordered a later work of the same author that might have something. Zero^talk 09:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

1504 -sállẹf ẹs-sábt bẹtlâqi l-ḥádd qẹddâmẹk. (Prête le samedi, tu trouveras le dimanche devant toi:'Loan Saturday (out), and you will find Sunday before you'). The meaning is glossed:'In order to encourage someone to assist and help others. We will be treated well or poorly/badly according to the way we (ourselves) behave'.

This appears indeed to render problematical much of our text from Khayyat. We have in short a mystery, created by the scholarly inadequacies of our only real source. At this point getting hold of Freya, no. 3826, is obligatory.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To be more explicit, if a proverb with minor textual variants can bear two distinct meanings, one implying religious intolerance, the other a generic moral warning that you reap what you sow, then many of these tertiary reports of the use of the proverb, automatically interpreted in one sense to the exclusion of the other, are unreliable. For all we know, the proverb could mean contextually:'expel Arabs and you will suffer expulsion'. Zero has uncovered several instances of this kind of source distortion in the past. It is not rare, and editors should feel under some obligation to clarify the matter. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are WP:RS like it don't and if the most sources discuss only one meaning we should do the same per WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Flagwaving bits of policy to incentivate prejudice (compare source bias) is tedious. To allay your fears that this attack page will be gutted of its venom, I am not contesting the sources. I am noting that the sources utterly fail to make a distinction that is in the scholarly literature. Indeed, this started with joyous alacrity as a documentation of a genocidal 'Arab' mindcast (Lowdermilk), then sources illustrating it actually clarify that, even in its common negative acceptance, it referred not to genocide but expulsion, that indeed it apparently gained currency after the 1948 war in which Arabs saw 700,000 Palestinians expelled. We don't have as yet a scholarly source that notes that the phrase, endlessly recycled in newspapers, contains an equivocation. The dimwits who mindlessly circulate it don't understand that it could mean nothing more than:'behave yourselves, or what you do to others will be done unto you'. Like most propaganda and spin, the noise crushes out the Eliyah-like qol in which attentive ears capture complexities. The more you understand complexity, the less space remains in one's brain for the echo-chamber effects of public political rhetoric and the instrumentalization of clichés. Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, a saying or phrase may have quite different meanings or interpetations over the course of time in parallel. Historical criticism does that as a science method since the 18. century. So what are you up for? Zero tried to get rid of the meaning "you get what you pay for" and as well the biblical quotation, as it is found in the Epistle to the Galatians. The way you interopret Lowdermilk is rather funny and does not have any rleation with his statement. Serten (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Zero did what good, as opposed to copy and paste, editors do. He checks things. Lowdermilk is not interpreted. His knowledge of history is pathetically ignorant. He can be used as an attestation of the phrase in its negative acceptancee 1940. Your construal and links of Lowdermilk are both ungrammatical and farcical. A soil conservationist with pro-Zionist political leanings and no knowledge of Arabic has, actually, zero value for the meaning of Arabic proverbs. It is as reliable as his comical assumption of the prophetic mantle, to predict something that, when the mandate expired, would happen to Jews, when the only recognizable reality was that something of his forecast happened to 'Arabs' (i.e. Palestinians). Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell me when your back in serious mode. Were discussing an WP article, not a forum for another round of arab-israeli exchange. As "soil conservationist with pro-Zionist political leanings and no knowledge of Arabic" may be bad in your eyes, but he seems to have got the message accross. Serten (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

English is not your first language, I gather. Your contributions to the article are marred by grammatical errors or bad prose. I expect this explains why you constantly misread or answer distractedly what other editors, who have long experience of the subject matter's scholarship, write. Like 'he seems to have got the message across'. I for one, don't know what this reemark is supposed to mean. As to 'serious mode', you declared on my page you are 'willing to use and take swipes easily'. Well, by all means, use the throne at home and swipe away all you like in privacy, but metaphorical swipes are wasting people's time as editors here.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If the primary meaning is more like Hillel's dictum or the golden rule, then that should get get top billing if we can get valid sourcing. I don't think anyone argues that the phrase was used by Arab Christians in the way Khayyat describes, but if it was predated by a few centuries of use in the context of "What is hateful to you… then that should be made clear. What we have now in the lead reflects that, which is good. Serten, Feghali is as reliable as Khayyat, subject to the proper translation. We prefer English texts on the ENglish Wikipedia, of course, but we allow texts in foregin languages as long as they pass our requiremenst. The points of views of the participants in this conversation is pretty clear, we've all been dancing in and out of Arab/Israel articles for years here, but I have no concern that either Zero or Nishidani (or you or I for that matter) would deliberately mistranslate a source to mislead the article. If Zero says that an accurate translation of Feghali is in line with the Golden rule, that's great. That being said, Nishidani, I don't think Khayyat's scholarship is being called into question. I think it is more likely that an existing proverb was repurposed over time, which is why I think that the order we have now: Probable original purpose, then notable repurpose, and lastly most current "shock" usage is the proper one. In that light, I think there probably should be a first paragraph in Usage and background section with what seems to be the original usage, and then Khayyat. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If Hmm I am not sure wether the Golden Rule is similar to "as we reap so shall we sow", but I let that up to you respectively the ongoing discussion of etimology. But I agree with Avi general outlook and prefer as well if the Golden Rule is used as well on WP:talk pages ;) Paulus letter are often more controversial, as in Robert Gernhardt Paulus schrieb den Irokesen: Euch schreib’ ich nichts, lernt erstmal lesen. (Paulus wrote the Iroqoisill, You get nought, ya have to be taught to read still) I have enlarged the article about Lowdermilk meanwhile and found some interesting contradictions as well. While parts of the "Lowdermilk plan" are still of importance in the holy land, Passia notes it, it was as early as 1946 harshely critized by local Christians, as it endangered the Sea of galilea. ;) Serten (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Avi, I am not questioning Khayyat's scholarship, and if that impression is given by my remarks, then I have expressed myself poorly. Indeed, he gave us several leads, and so far, Zero and the rest of us have managed only to get a handle on the bare bones of one. The other regional variants he cites, I should think, should gain equal attention (i.e. perhaps someone with native fluency in Iraqi Arabic. Pity I can't ask Ezra Nawi). When I read the whole of the Khayyat article, I thought actually that, by focusing on one particular proverb, it was making life tough for us, and that perhaps we needed a generic article that would cover all of the proverbs on inter-communal conflict in Arabic (what Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews and Muslims say, in their respective proverbs, of each other) because it looks richer article wise (more encyclopedic, and perhaps easier to balance per NPOV, though on the other hand I'm sure the language would yield up more material expressive of Muslim feelings) and is itself a fascinating topic with probably more scholarship accessible than what you would get with just one isolated instance. I don't mind the worst of the worst being registered on anything, as long as the point is of scholarly interest, discursive importance and done even-handedly, without playing into the emotions. Our problem here is that referred hearsay usage (I have my own list, which I will present shortly) far outweighs sources with critical value, and we cannot bridge the dissonance which has emerged by WP:OR, leaving us with an imbalance between hysteric innuendo and cool analysis (like much of life). Pazienza.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Paul wrote to the Iroquois, an Indian breed:
• 'I’ll write no epistles to you, for you need
• To first mug up on the abc, and learn to read.'Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I submit / committ myself, Nishidani youre the one to turn to about poetry here. Serten (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction of a Bible verse here is pure Original Research. There is nothing about it in any of the sources found so far, and there is no reason whatever to assume that the Bible is the origin for this obvious proverb. Independent invention is just as likely, just as the similar Golden Rule was invented many times. Incidentally I removed "you get what you pay for" because although it is similar it is not the same. It is usually used in a fairly literal way with "pay" as in money, but more generally means "if you want something you have to work for it". It doesn't have the symmetry between good and evil that our proverb has, nor the symmetry between what is given and what is received. The golden rule is also subtly different: "treat someone as you would like them to treat you" (the GR) is not the same as "others will treat you as you treat them" (ours) — the golden rule does not promise something back. Zero^talk 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the golden rule has no payback aspect. I erased it. I would be more interested wether the row of days has any symbolic value with Islam, as in Supersessionism and Dual-covenant theology for some christians. Serten (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to keep the scan of Feghali that I displayed above, take your own copy right away. The copyright folks might delete it (one year too early for public domain probably, fair use arguable). Zero^talk 00:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Attention must be drawn to the utilitarian view of reciprocity that the Arab has with regard to mutual help. He gives because he expects to receive. . .As he advances a service or goods, he becomes preoccupied with the expected return. However, he is sure of being repaid.”Lend Saturday, you will find Sunday ahead of you”; consequently, the Arab tries to lend his services in order to acquire some extra merit.”Service for service, merit goes to the beginner.” This system of taslîf wa-muwâfât (advancement and repayment, particularly of favors) is a well-entrenched customs among the Arabs’Sania Hamady, Temperament and Character of Arabs, Twayne Publishers 1960 p.30

Thnx for the Sania Hamady link, thats quite helpful. She uses "Today in my house, tomorrows in yours" as synomym for her translation of our proverbe as "lend Saturday, you will find Sunday ahead of you". Thats a sort of Dichotomy in Gift economy, interpretable as a promise - and as a threat, and contains both aspect. Its combined with de:Scham- und Schuldkultur, as arabs (and french), which either set set Shame/Honor/Clientelism above (scandic/German) Guilt/Justice/Corporatism. I think we have pointed out both aspects and we may keep that, but provide a better equilibrium. I added some points from Annemarie Schimmel about the weekdays symbolic value. Serten (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think one need speculate. Gift-giving, hospitality are universally ambiguous, and Hamady's error was to 'typify' as 'Arab' a calculatedness that is implicit in emotional and economic exchange systems. That was pointed out memorably by Marcel Mauss in his ground-breaking essay . Suffice it to recall that a 'Gift' in English is 'poison' in German, the words being cognate, and the word for 'guest' (someone with privileges to receive) is related to hostis (enemy), as Émile Benveniste showed in a delightful treatise.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points about your recent edits: Annemarie Schimmel's Das islamische Jahr: Zeiten und Feste, is not given pagination, and searching her book, I can find not reference to the Arabic proverb. If that is so, your use of her text to gloss Hamady's remark would constitutee WP:OR, and must be removed until this is clarified. Secondly, your gloss on Hamady is, in my view, not quite nuanced enough and I have written it to conform more closely to the source.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, while I am OK with most of the changes, you changed my

* merit goes to the beginner” respectively "Today in my house (for help), tomorrow in yours" express a [[gift economy]] with a strong [[clientelism]] aspect. into

• Arabs have an incentive to assist others because he who is first to proffer a service acquires thereby merit as the initiator in [[The Gift (book)|the system of social exchange]].<ref>Sania Hamady, [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tKX-IeFMNKAC&pg=PA30 ''Temperament and Character of Arabs,''] Twayne Publishers 1960 p.30</ref>

• It would be better to use gift economy instead The Gift (book) as to relate to "system of social exchange". Hamady is imho not wrong at all, she uses an (for the folklorist) rather explicit notion to Ruth Benedicts de:Scham- und Schuldkultur, where the arab East (and catholic Europe) have a 'shame' culture, emphasis is on how one's moral conduct appears to outsiders while Protestant Europe is more abut 'guilt' culture, in which the emphasis is on individual's internal conscience. Germans do both. That said, that gifts are base of an exchange is a global issue, similar as potlatch is not confined to Indians, but the notion of how you get in debt of each other may be rather different. The clientelism linkage is quite clear, and not bad per se, whole of France works like that, its just different as e.g. to German corporatism. Hamady refers as well to the concept of Mar'uf, disinterested help, which is quite against a 'typified' an 'Arab' calculatedness. The contrary may (but not must) be the case.

Please take editing according to wiki protocols seriously. Your use of Annemarie Schimmel is WP:OR because the article is about a proverb which she doesn't cite, and the ref. to page 34 says nothing about that proverb. It is all very well to be informed that Cairo women visit the Al-Hussein Mosque on Saturday, how Humayun ordered the day by day schduling of his affairs, and the star names, and colours associated with the days of the week in various traditions, but none of this has the slightest relevance to the topic at hand.

Hamady's book belongs to a war-time/ early post-war genre, now disregarded except as an object of historical curiosity, created out of the Office of War Information, which apart from her still interesting book (C&S) churned out 'national portraits' to order. From memory, Geoffrey Gorer took two days to write up his portrait of the national characteristics of th Russian people. There is no value in such an approach: it is now replaced by specific anthropological monographs of distinct groups, tribes and peoples, and focuses on social structure, not 'national mindsets'. So we use Hamady (1960) only for the proverb and the gloss on it. There is nothing 'peculiarly Arab' about Hamady's description. It is popular sociology. The link I provided is better since Mauss's treatise covers both reciprocity and gift exchange, and your link to Gift economy is not only restrictive but also question-begging.

As to the theory associated with Benedict's name, she only popularized it (probably, though it it my personal view she was influenced by Gilbert Murray's antithesis of Αιδώς and Νέμεσις in his classic The Rise of the Greek Epic, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1907 pp.80-88). It's dated. There are numerous books on this, all critical of making binary contrasts between cultures in terms of a simplistic dyad like shame/honour or shame/guilt etc. The distinction between Protestant 'guilt' and Catholic 'shame' is hilarious.

Others have argued for rigour in one seection here (adducing parallels to this proverb without textual warrant), correctly in policy terms, and your edits, and proposals here, do violate WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR is about sources directly supporting the material being presented, its a wide difference between OR in the sence of "making it up or by oneself" and using actual science to underline a point (in)directly linked with the article. With regard to Ruth Benedicts de:Scham- und Schuldkultur was never hilarious and is still of scientific interest. I would not have any problem to translate the article using current research, e.g. with Tribunal der Blicke of Claudia Benthien as of 2011. We might convene on the notion, that a generic "Arabs behave like, but Jews or Germans do otherwise was important 20th century anthropology approach, but became sort of outdated, similar as the Kulturkreis theory. Serten (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

de:Scham- und Schuldkultur is a pathetically sketchy stub ignoring at least two dozen sources on th subject which I, for one, am familiar with. It reads: Die Unterteilung in Scham- und Schuldkulturen ist in der Forschung umstritten. Almost all contemporary studies mentioning it show that it is criticized as faultily constructed rather than of 'scientific interest.' I'd like nothing more than to bring my own studies to bear on articles, but it is (justifiably) forbidden, and you are obliged to respect this. Unless a book or article mentions the specific topic of this page, it cannot be brought to bear on anything in it. That is the rule, applied endlessly over a decade.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the notion about the deW entry being sort on bullshit. Point is, that we mainly disagree on the WP:OR definition - I assume a topic has to be directed with the subject of the article, it however doesn't need to mention the topic at all. de:Helmut F. Kaplan e.g. parrots the Singer story and is important for German veganist, but is not quoted in science, but the anglo discussion applies to him as well That said, the article looks much better now and is beyound another afD, right? Serten (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The article is a disgrace, the Arabic transcriptions are apparntly off the mark, the translations philologically inept, and the harvesting of sources from people whose background comes from only one of several cultures in the area means the page remains what it was designed to be, a piece of pseudo-documentation using dubious hearsay to screw the Muslim Palestinians, and praise Israel as the only country which stands between Christians and barbarism. Note this crap, assuming a thesis as a fact:

It is one of the reasons Christian Palestinians increasingly ask for a double nationality and apply as well for Israeli citizenship,[20] and both communities feel a stronger need to cooperate against militant Islamists Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is beyond AfD, but it was safe earlier too. That's not because it is a good article, but because it's polemic value is too great. Although I'm now convinced that the Jew/Christian version of the proverb existed somewhere sometime, it's rarity is reflected in the fact that we still haven't found a single actual usage but only memetic claims from people with obvious motivation. Even the Palestinian claim comes from enemies of Hamas. Assertions that it is common are not believable. For one thing, MEMRI would not be able to resist showing us regular examples if they actually existed. Zero^talk 08:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats two aspects - have you done any google search with the arab text? I doubt that the slogan is written often on the wall - a longstanding presence on the grapevine / radio couloire (the French translate Chinese whispers into "fr:téléphone arabe") however is proven. Serten (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The only Palestinian proverb linguistically echoing this runs: illî b-yidhak es-sabt, b-yilqâ el-'ahad quddâmu,(If you laugh on Saturday, you will find Sunday ahead of you). Almost identical and having no meaning of the kind attributed to the variant we mention here.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge published collection of Palestinian proverbs compiled by a Bethlehem pastor Sa’īd Abbūd (Kitāb al-ṭurfah al-bāhijah fī al-amthāl wa-al-ḥikam al-ʻArabīyah al-dārijah.) It runs to 5,000, and the annotated German translation exceeds that (5333 items. See Martin Thilo, 5000 arabisch Sprichwörter aus Palästina. Aus dem arabischen übersetzt von M. T.W. Walter de Gruyter Berlin 1937). All a search for the keywords yielded a blank silence. The only thing even vaguely similar was this unique entry: 'Sunday is longer than Saturday' which, as is typical of proverbs, has several meanings:

p. 114 No.2309 'Der Samstag ist länger als der Sonntag, denn an ihm häufen sich die Arbeiten über dem Menschen zusammen, und er ist genötigt, länger aufzubleiben. Desgleichen wird es vom dem, was nicht an seinem Platze ist, gebraucht.- Das Sprichwort wurde zu einer Frau gesagt, deren weißer Unterrock länger als ihr Oberkleid war, und sie verstand es gleich.

This was written before Lowdermilk's comment. I too believe on the strength of what we have so far that the evidence attests to the existence of a Jewish/Christian interpretation, vastly overblown in tabloid spin. Tiamut had never heard of it, neither has Amr, and several other people from that area I've asked. What is disgraceful here is the disregard for the fundamental rule governing the use of proverbs put down by de:Edvard Westermarck, and approved by Shelomo Dov Goitein: ‘Only by an intimate knowledge of the society studied is one able to evaluate its proverbs correctly.’ E. Westermarck, Wit and Wisdom in Morocco, G. Routledge & Sons, London 1930 p.52. What the the tabloid press has done is pick out the tidbit or morsel and describe it as the main course at a pan-Arab banquet. It just means hard work for those who take the diffusion of prejudice and its politics in wikipedia as a serious problem.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that doesnt answer my question. I dont think you ever will find it as a christian proverb, its been used as a grapevine message, similar as "Himmlischer Frieden" (Heavenly Peace) or "Chinese Solution" was a informal coded threat rising fear of a violent cut down of the democracy moevement in East Germany in the Summer of 1989, similar as the one on Tiananmen Square. Serten (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• With regard to the Schimmel entry, the page is S.34, my renewed suggestion:
• Annemarie Schimmel notes some aspects of the symbolic value of the week days, which are being used as names as well. While Friday is being rather positively connotated, both Saturday and Sunday have good and bad aspects, both refered to with symbolic aspects (Saturn and Sun) while wednesday has a stronger overall negative connotation in muslim folklore. Note I havent used that entry to explain the proverb, I am just explaining the symbolic value of the week days. Thats no OR per se. Serten (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Family Business

Aisha Taymur has her own article, her brother Ahmed Pasha Taymur is used as a source here and two nephews: Mohammad Taymur, a playwright and Mahmoud Taymur, a novelist seem to have as well notability. I think we should try to get at least an article for Ahmed Pasha Taymur, and I think that would be an nice topic for DYK on the main page. Any help with sources and arabic writing is welcome. Serten (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just created an article on Ahmed Taymour, translated from the Arabic wiki. I'll add more references. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its now long enough for a DYK, I have suggested it for the main page section. Any chance to get a picture of him? That increases hit rates and is more personal. Serten (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The article (After Saturday Comes Sunday) is trash and would never pass DYK. I don't know why editors active on this page have closed an eye to the massive WP:NOR violations on the page. But they have to go. You cannot create a sociology of Palestinian history out of a proverb, whose relevance has yet to be established for it (it does not figure as a Palestinian proverb, but as a Lebanese proverb flagged by either Jewish or Israeli polemicists to wave down Palestinian people and their evil motives). Well, you have done just that, but it is personal research, inept at that.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a bet that the article I proposed will pass DYK? I would write an article for you within a month, you suggest three feasible (OKed by third party de:Sekundant) topics, if you win. You do the same. Serten (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in question just passed DYK ;) Serten (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Link please Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ahmed Taymour, at your service and your families. Serten (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The supposed flag

This article gets more ridiculous by the minute. I don't see the slightest reason to treat Lela Gilbert's book as a reliable source. Consider the supposed flag picture [6]. Whoever made that flag wasn't a Palestinian: it is upside down. Actually I suspect it is a photoshop job, look at this version and see how distinct the writing is and how it doesn't distort where the flag folds. That photo was provided by Gilbert on this blog where she says "It's a flag that was seized by an Israeli from a Muslim demonstrator during the 1st Intifada." So she doesn't provide a reliable provenance for it either. Zero^talk 13:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but Lela Gilbert already had been part of the article (in the separate media section, together with the Rehov film) for rather long and the word flag doesnt occur in the article nor was she quoted for any flag hissing. I refer to her as a Hudson Institute affiliate, she is of conservative evengelical background. PS.: Have you tried to google the arab text? Serten (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to Lela Gilbert being in the media section; I object to her being cited as a source of fact. She isn't a source of fact. The only evidence she provides for this slogan is a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. Apart from that, only assertions along with lots of other assertions. Zero^talk 23:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. With the notable exeption of one photoshop job, we still haven't found any proof of the slogan used as a graffiti, right? I moved Gilbert and Rehovs film to the metonymy section, as she confirms that, but relies on Wahed for the proverbs use as threat. I indicated as well the "mixed bag" review she got with the Jewish Book Council. Serten (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC) PS "It is often reported to be in use among certain Muslims as a slogan to threaten local Christian communities" could be reduced to it "use as a muslim threat against local Christian communities is a often repeated, but actually not confirmed meme and narrative" or a similar wording. What u suggest? Serten (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Clean up

I would never had quoted or mentioned the flag or graffitit issues as you did. The article now conveys more the allegation of a writing on the wall than mine. I just don't believe the proverb ever had been written on a wall or flag till I get real evidence and rely more on the overall picture layed out in the background part. But I think your approach is along WP rules as well, there are different ways to Rome. Serten (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC) If 'you' is me, I can't recall my editing in that material. Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The flag was inserted by Shrike.[7] It isn't even the same slogan. Zero^talk 21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, then we have a misunderstanding, whoever erased it, has my agreement. Olim le Berlin ;) Serten (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to the proverb in sources for the following

• Jacob Lassner, does not mention proverbs like this

• Wolf-Hagen von Angern Geschichtskonstrukt und Konfession im Libanon, the only use of a proverb I can find there is the Lebanese one: dine with the Druse in the evening but sleep overnight with Christians p. 182

• However evangelical (Christian Zionism) strong support of Israel, which gained importance in the USA after 1967, is based on dispensationalist Dual-covenant theology. E.g. rightwing Hudson Institute evangelist affiliate and Christian fundamentalist Lela Gilbert uses the metonymy in a book title.

Jane Wallerstein,review of Saturday People, Sunday People: Israel through the Eyes of a Christian Sojourner,' Jewish Book Council

Compar Shoshana Bryen, Review Jewish Policy Center, Focus Quarterly Spring 2013

The Agenda The last chapter, "Natural Allies in a Dangerous World," postulates that Jews and Christians, as minorities, have to stand together to defend Israel and defend the remaining Christian communities of the Middle East. It is hard to argue against the proposition.

Gilbert has a sharp tongue for Muslim radicals and the politics of the Catholic Church. But she slides a little too lightly over the history of Christian-Jewish relations.

"Muslim hatred of Jews," she writes, "is linked to hatred of Christians." Radical Islamists, "demonstrate that, in their view, human life is of less value than the Islamic religion itself. Human beings—and their God-given breath of life—are found wanting in comparison to the sanctity of Islam's holy book, the Quran. And the revered reputation of its prophet Mohammed. And calls to jihad—holy war—from radical leaders against non-Muslims."

She calls out the Catholic Church's political bias against Israel: "The Vatican's Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops… chose to focus on the 'Israeli occupation' of Palestinian territories rather than naming the actual perpetrators of ongoing violence against Christians; radical Islamic terrorists," adding, "The Vatican's focus on Israel, rather than on radical Islam, as the root cause of abuses against Christians, is both disingenuous and destructive."

But she engages in a bit of disingenuousness herself when she discovers that Bethlehem's Christians have anti-Jewish attitudes no different from those of radical Muslims, and place blame on Israel no differently than does the Catholic Church. She lets them duck: "As the leaders of the Arab Christian churches place the blame for the dangers facing Arab Christians squarely on the shoulders of Israel, they never hint that the radical religious jihadis or 'Islamic Mafia'…are extorting, threatening, falsely accusing and sometimes murdering Christian Arabs."

Gilbert appears not to consider that the Catholic Church may blame Israel precisely because it fears that Islamic violence against local Christians might be exacerbated by taking Israel's side. Nor does she consider that Arab Christians may really share Arab Muslim anti-Jewish attitudes. It can't go all one way for the Catholic Church and all the other way for the Arab Christians.

Correct me if I err.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources are being used for what they stand for. Lassner is about the metonomy, not the proverb, the others are about the PLO being able to include clergy and so on. Christian Zionism is based on dispensationalist Dual-covenant theology, yep. Serten (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. You have to have a source which mentions the proverb+ ths issuesNishidani (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Thats been discussed before. I have to provide a source that cites what is being edited and has to do with the subject of the article. What is in question ist the metonomy and the symbolic value of Sunday following Saturday in the Eastern Churches. Thats highly important. Serten (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you follow the sources quite close, but leave out the background. Just to link and explain Dual-covenant theology explains more about the issue than a lenghty quote of Gilbert. I think you give her undue weight doing so. Serten (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

From the beginning your edits ignored the rule and you composed a 'narrative'. The rule is as I stated it: you cannot add things like metonomy, 'the symbolic value of Sunday following Saturday in the Eastern Churches,' dispensationalist Dual-covenant theology unless the sources dealing with those topics, do so in the context of mentioning this particular proverb. Of course, from a scholarly point of view, these things are relevant, but until RS written by scholars develop the themes by connecting the two,we as editors are not permitted to draw that obvious link. It would be wonderful to have such a liberty - I'd feel entitled to rewrite the whole page according to my own knowledge of what's really going on -the circulation of cheap political memes to cariature a people - the failure of these clunks to clarify in what sense is the observed graffiti being used (a) 'you reap what you sow' or (b) 'we're gunna kill you Christian m-f*ckers after we get through with the Jews' - two completely different concepts available to readers of the proverb. Because none of the reportorial dimwits or evangelical twits disseminating these stories has looked into the issue, we have pure farce. But though you and I know that, we are not permitted to correct possible disinformation in the light of this:we can only use what relevant sources dealing directly with the proverbial literature state.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Point is, you cannot avoid communication narratives. "Your story" is now much more violent than mine, I never would have given Gilbert or Merker than amount of space or credibility you do. And yes, I can, the metonomy is to be explained and the artice needs a Grundkonzept. Serten (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I added neither. You and Shrike did. I'm just Sad Sack here, cleaning up the mess. Since two bit scholars and wild-eyed evangelicat nitwits are plunked onto this page, their nonsensee has to be contextualized. Gilbert and Merkley use any argument to support Christian pro-Zionism: while the former is rabidly anti-Catholic, the latter's evangelical hysteria is pro-Catholic. I can't put that in, because the point is not made in RS on this adage. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I used those nitwit sources differently, as for me as a good german, conceptual consistency is more important than details. I am usually willing to make a mutually beneficial deal, but I keep my demand for conceptual consistency. ;) Christian pro-Zionism and Arab Churches different dealings with the proverb are based on the metonimy and that is based on different notions of dispensationalist Dual-covenant theology. Thats to be kept and from that point, one can reduce the quotes en large. If you agree, as I won't touch your cleanup work against your will. Serten (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wel write an article on th connection, get it reliably publishd and we can cite it here. So far we have some testimony for Lebanese. Almost none, except for a certain West Jerusalemit, Naila, for what Palestinian Arab Christians think in regard to the adage, and Tiamut, who is a Palestinian Christian there, and an honest lass, had never heard of the expression in this sense. I've no reason to doubt her word.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats about two topics. I dont claim to source the proverb directly, but the metonimy. The metonimy and Lazarus Sunday / Easter Sunday is part of Dual-covenant theology - with direct and important politial implications for the different churches relationship with the middle east and the jewish faith in general. One doesnt need Merkley or that rather mundane WP:article for that. Take Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact on Jewish-Catholic Relations : Proceedings of the International Conference, Jerusalem, 30 October-1 November 2005. As said various times, I strongly doubt the proverb has ever been written on a wall by muslims, its much more of a internal slogan, and as you say, it might be more present with evangelical (US) christians than with arab ones. Serten (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Point is - I think you gave overdue weight to quoting Merkley, especially where he starts bullshitting. I have reduced that sort of, as the important aspects are not based on his theology, but part of the interfaith games since centuries. Merkley provides the connection between dual convenant and the proverb, thats Ok, but I wouldnt take him too serious about the rest, as long its not confirmed by other sources.Serten (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: Israel Amrani statement about the anglican PLO speaker is less about her christianity, but about the pro Israel Role of the Anglicans, which gave them a bad image with arab christians.Serten (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

More on Khayyat's sources

I now have temporary possession of Anis Freya, A Dictionary of Modern Lebanese Proverbs, Libraire du Liban, Beirut 1974. It is an English translation of the 1953 Arabic work of Freya cited by Khayyat. I have no way to know whether anything was changed in the translation, but I'm sure this work is the same since the proverbs cited by Khayyat appear here with the same numbers. First of all: no Jewish/Christian interpretation here. Since Freya is the source Khayyat cited first (though with "Cf.") it seems that Khayyat had no literary source at all for his version. Rather, it was something he collected himself, as he states in his introduction, and the literary parallels are given only for comparison. Freya says that all the proverbs in the book were known at his Druse village Ras al-Main east of Beirut, though he doesn't doubt many of them are known more widely.

Interestingly there are two proverbs in Freya, both cited by Khayyat. I'll bring the Arabic text for them when I scan it.Arabic text above.

• Proverb 3826. He who invests on Saturday shall find Sunday not far away from him.
• Proverb 1916. Advance Saturday with credit and you shall find it on Sunday (or invest on Saturday and you shall reap on Sunday). Meaning: in order to protect one's self against the future, one has to invest.

Zero^talk 07:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. All the more with which to expand the original meaning of the proverb. As is common, it was probably re-purposed in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century to the way Khayyat's sources brought it to him (to wit, the Cf. as you say) , but that is its secondary meaning. Sadly, due to the difficulties between various peoples in the region, that is the version which may be more widespread in contemporary writings. Thanks for the research, Zero. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

This, the second AfD, was closed per WP:IAR, and that closure was reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#AfD.2FIAR_review. DGG agrees with me that this particular closure does not prevent a third good-faith nomination for deletion. I do agree with DGG that there was disruption at that particular discussion, and many editors agreed with DGG that the disruption alone was grounds enough for a premature closure of the discussion. For a future AfD, rest assured that admins (this one included) will not hesitate to block for disruptive behavior (including suggestions of racism, personal attacks, forum posting, etc.). The rules of behavior in an AfD are the same as they are for article talk page, at least as far as I'm concerned, and since the topic is covered under discretionary sanctions I would have no qualms being as strict at the AfD as we are (or should be) on this talk page, for instance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

---

After Saturday Comes Sunday → After Saturday comes Sunday – Redundant capitalization of "comes", since it's a proverb --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) – Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, it seems more like a slogan. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Seems like a proverb to me, and therefore the capital C on "comes" is unnecessary. – PeeJay 10:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Classic (and quotable) case of either being perfectly adequate (probably best I've seen so far in fact). So let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Traditional Arab" phrase?

I have issues with this article, but here will only go into one of them (the most important one in my opinion): what evidence or references does this article give that supports the claim that this saying is both "traditional" (meaning having a notable long history) and "Arab" (implying it is wide-spread in the Arab world as opposed to regionally restricted to places like Palestine or Lebanon and such) as claimed in the introduction to the artcle? A subset of my concern is, assuming the saying is indeed traditional anywhere (whether whole Arab world or just a part of it), I believe the article needs to make it clearer what the "traditional" interpretation was, as a lot of readers are taking from this article (as currently written) that the traditional meaning (assuming the saying is traditional at all) is the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian one. Furthermore, I believe it should be made more clear what (religious) group ascribed such-and-such meaning(s) to the term. Again, a lot of readers are taking from this article a negative meaning of the line as being of Muslim origin, when, assuming the line is even traditional, this might not even be the case (in fact, the current article suggests it is of Christian origin). ~~Triailer~~

Couldn't agree more, see previous discussion. A certain group with known affiliations and political are trying to force this meaning, when there is no evidence whatsoever (wall graffitti, documentation, signs, etc.) that support these claims. Go ahead and edit as you see fit. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Page move?

Can we move it to After Saturday comes Sunday? There's no reason to capitalise "comes" in a proverb. Equinox (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. And since it seems impossible to delete this shitty article, it should be renamed. Zero^talk 05:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Since no one's done it yet, I'll be bold and do it now. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on After Saturday Comes Sunday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019170511/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4A465BEB69F314D052567FC005D057B to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4A465BEB69F314D052567FC005D057B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101125621/http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=3526 to http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx%3FARTID%3D3526

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)