Jump to content

Talk:Death to Arabs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Grave vandalized with "death to Arabs" in Hebrew
Grave vandalized with "death to Arabs" in Hebrew

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 16:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: long enough new enough, hook sourced, copy vio is in the green range, pic is clear and free, qpq done. The hook could go, but maybe we find something even better. I am not really glad with the "football fans and marchers". How about death to Arabs is shouted by football fans, on (nationalist) rallies and... in Israel? / And just to go sure, the Amir Ben Porat source: does it also source the two forgoing phrases? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. I've clarified the sourcing in the article. Not sure if "In Israel" is appropriate because the slogan is frequently used in places (East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza, etc.) that are outside of Israel. What do you think of:
ALT0a: ... that "death to Arabs" is shouted by Israeli football fans and nationalist marchers, and is commonly seen in graffiti (pictured)? (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty other more recent sources, eg.:

  • "When it comes to budgets and infrastructure, discrimination against Arab sports is at least as severe as in other areas of life, if not more so, since sport is ostensibly a luxury. The only sport that still somehow exists is soccer, which has several successful clubs and players good enough to advance also to European teams. Yet they all face calls of ‘Death to the Arabs’ when they play before Jewish crowds." Sport, Politics and Society in the Arab World p. 144, 2012
  • "What is left unsaid expresses the divided identity of many Palestinian citizens and the opposition they face, manifested during matches by racial insults and calls of ‘death to the Arabs’" 2012, doi 10.1080/14660970.2012.730779
  • "Yet Israeli agrees with Bitton on one point: The state of Israel has become more violent. “The stands have never been a pure place,” Bitton said. “But in the past, this was not the essence of things. In recent years, things have changed, tending in that direction. 'Death to the Arabs' and similar calls, or derisive jeering directed at black players, have become the norm. At one time, anyone who acted like this would have been silenced right away. These days, those trying to quell it are a rarity. Previously marginal trends have become the mainstream.”" Israelis fear violence on soccer fields 2015, Al-Monitor (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per a discussion at WT:DYK I have pulled the hook. There is some rough consensus in the discussion that the original hook cannot run and that a new one is needed. Courtesy ping to discussion participants: @Buidhe, Theleekycauldron, Kusma, Kingsif, TSventon, Gatoclass, Schwede66, Ezlev, Maile66, and Evrik: as well as reviewer @Paradise Chronicle: and promoter @Bruxton:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt1 ... that political scientist Ian Lustick believes an anti-Arab hate slogan often shouted by Israeli Jews was inspired by Nazi slogans from during the Holocaust? (Source: page 144 of the Lustick source given in the article)
I made some comments at WT:DYK. I do not favor hiding the article title. Bruxton (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We use links with other text all the time when the hook reads better and it's still an accurate link. Improved readability without losing accuracy is not censorship. Kingsif (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lustick says "mimics"; what does that mean to you? I also think it's against the spirit of DYK to refuse hooks just because you really want the article title verbatim. Is it some point you're trying to make? Kingsif (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kingsif, I'm guessing you didn't read the source but the quotation is from a discussion of comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany; I don't think Lustick is trying to imply that there's any causal relationship. I don't think that all hooks have to be exactly verbatim, but trying to write a hook without disclosing the article's subject, is rather pointless to me. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, hence supplying a page number the article doesn't; if there is vagueness, maybe a different hook altogether should be proposed, but mimicry is done with intent. The subject is mentioned as "hate slogan", which is what is needed to understand the hook; to add the wording of the slogan (which sources, including Lustick, even note is more like variations on "death to Arabs", so insisting on the phrase appearing is especially pointless) does not add information and requires another clause, thus breaks flow. And, where it would already be detrimental to insist on rephrasing for its inclusion, it could be offensive to some, so what does it achieve? Of course, this is more of a philosophical DYK discussion than this nom. Options have been provided, leave me a talk message if you still want to talk DYK purpose. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editors also expressed opposition to burying the lead in this manner, so I don't think that's the way to go. There is only one variation of the slogan in Hebrew; because of a different grammatical structure it could be translated "death to Arabs" or "death to the Arabs". (t · c) buidhe 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editors - no, one other editor, who, by the nature of their comment, was incorrectly assuming there was deliberate censorship and was expressing opposition to that. There isn't. As for burying the lead, doing that is hiding the real story among boring facts or at the end; since the 'real story' for DYK is what is hooky, not adding superfluous clauses is the opposite of burying a lead. I'm starting to think you just want to see "death to Arabs" on the main page since there is truly no good reason to ask for only phrasings that do so. We've already had to ban one user for using WP:NOTCENSORED to be unnecessarily provocative. Kingsif (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that proliferation of the slogan "death to Arabs" coincided with calls from the Israeli right to expel Arab citizens?
  • ALT3: ... that in 2020, a Gulf Arab sheikh bought a 50 percent stake in an Israeli football club whose fans regularly shout "death to Arabs"?

theleekycauldron's suggestion could also be used:

  • ALT0a: ... that "death to Arabs" is commonly used by Israeli football fans and nationalist marchers?

(t · c) buidhe 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the second round I'd go with either ALT3 or ALT3a. That an Arab Sheikh seems to approve Death to Arabs was also surprising to me. Are there any objections to those?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the source(s) used make the connection between the Sheikh buying the club and the slogan (e.g. a news article about the purchase saying it's surprising because of the fans shouting the slogan), it is WP:SYNTH that should be removed from the article. Sheikhs own lots of football clubs, including some in England where fans regularly shout racial slurs at Mo Salah; they're in it for the money, they don't care about the chants of fans. And not only does the hook connect two seemingly-unrelated facts (by phrasing even if the sources exist), the main focus of the hook with this phrasing is that a Sheikh has a 50% stake in a football club, which 1. is completely uninteresting and 2. doesn't center the article subject, either. So, yeah, several glaring objections. Kingsif (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An Israeli premier league football team whose most hardcore fans chant “Death to Arabs” faces a crisis of introspection following a landmark deal that saw the club part-sold to an unlikely new owner: an Arab sheikh."
  • "A top-tier Israeli soccer team with a notoriously racist, Arab-hating fan base has sold a 50 percent ownership stake to a member of one of the royal families of the United Arab Emirates. The barrier-shattering deal is among the first fruits of Israel’s nearly three-month-old normalization agreement with the Emirates and carries outsize symbolic importance: It puts a Muslim sheikh at the helm of Beitar Jerusalem, the only Israeli team that has never fielded an Arab player — and whose most extremist fans routinely chant virulent slurs like “Death to Arabs.”" CMD (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how putting the slogan at the end would make the hook uninteresting, personally I thought the dissonance between the slogan's existence and the new owner of the football club that used it was surprising regardless of where the slogan is mentioned. Sometimes hooks work better when the subject is not at the front of the hook. With that said, I would agree with Kingsif that it's probably unnecessary to mention the slogan by name given that the main hook fact (an Arab buying a club whose fans state an anti-Arab slogan) is already interesting by itself regardless of what the slogan actually is. I understand the concerns about censorship, but considering what happened at DYK the last time seemingly anti-Muslim or anti-religion hooks were proposed, that's really not a road I would like us to go through again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't restate and may have caused some confusion: the hook seems uninteresting because until the end it sounds like it/the focus is just telling the reader that a Sheikh bought a football club, which is a common occurrence. Bringing the information about the slogan forward would make it more immediately interesting; I wasn't trying to suggest that boldlinks can't work at the end. Kingsif (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, something like below?
ALT3b ... that a 50 percent stake in an Israeli football club whose fans regularly shout an anti-Arab slogan was bought by an Arab Sheik in 2020?
ALT3c ... that a 50 percent stake in an Israeli football club whose fans regularly shout "Death to Arabs" was bought by an Arab Sheik in 2020?
I would have to note though, given WP:ARBPIA, I still think we have to be very very careful about both the article and the hook wording. For this reason I'd be opposed to ALT3c despite proposing it, I simply provided it for illustration purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 ... that a racist slogan "Death to Arabs" have a mirror counterpart among the Palestinians "Itbah al-Yehud" [butcher the Jew] Source https://www.jstor.org/stable/23256683 ,"Still Itbah al-Yehud [butcher the Jew] has more resonance. True, the mirror image exists in the cry Mavet laAravim [Death to the Arabs] of the mob calling for revenge whenever Israelis are killed" --Shrike (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not think this hook is very good. So there is a conflict, and some people on both sides really do not like the other side? The one involving the Arab sheikh is much more hooky imv. (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3d: ... that an Israeli football club whose fans regularly shout "death to Arabs" is half-owned by an Arab Sheik? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this suggestion. (t · c) buidhe 09:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I was pinged here) I think this one is OK. If the hook is purely societal then we end up with "Did you know that people in a long and bloody conflict shout unpleasant things at each other?" to which my answer would be "Yeah, I could have guessed that". The disconnect of the Arab Sheikh part owning a club where the epithet is used by the fans is genuinely hooky, though. Black Kite (talk)

garbled english again.

[edit]

Shrike. You frequently write, except when making AE/ANI cases, garbled English. Well, it's not a problem. People like myself correct it. I did so, and now you've messed my correction again:'the killing of a disarmed Palestinian who lay wounded on the ground after he had been shot during the stabbing an Israeli soldier earlier' is not an improvement on 'the murder of a disarmed Palestinian who lay wounded on the ground after he had been shot for stabbing an Israeli soldier earlier'. He was not shot 'during', but after he inflicted two knife wounds to the shoulder and arm of the IDF soldier.'During' would imply that he managed to keep stabbing the soldier after he was shot. These are grammatical and stylistic niceties, and trying to overwrite them over-rights the reality of what happened, which was eminently clear from my paraphrase.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad English in quote.

[edit]

"Palestinian or Arab says something hateful, whole society deemed violent."

This sentence is a direct quote from the cited source, but it is also very obviously bad English. What is the more desirable approach in such cases? Staying true to the source, or paraphrasing the statement to improve the language? Herr Hartmann (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just Twitter omission of little words that don't contribute to the meaning. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer the question. The cited source is not Twitter, it's a news page article. So apparently, the author and the editor at that page agreed to stay true to the original source. The question is: Does Wikipedia agree with this decision as well? Herr Hartmann (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is "principle of minimal change" for direct quotes. Since the text is understandable as it is, I don't think it merits changing. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, that answers my question. Thanks! So, should this quote get the [sic] tag, then? Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of balance in the lead

[edit]

The lead is supposed to reflect the weight given to different aspects in reliable sources and in the article body.As it is the lead gives the most weight to one aspect that does not have as much coverage in reliable sources or in the article compared to the prominence it is given (fully 25 percent of the word count) while other aspects such as violent hate crimes against Palestinians aren't mentioned. Furthermore, this comment does not seem to be assuming good faith. It's not tendentious to insist that the lead should follow Wikipedia content policy. (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive

[edit]

I don't see where the opposite expression "Death to Israel" is referenced anywhere in the article. This is much more common, pervasive , and earlier documented, expression. The expression referenced in the current article must be seen as responsive.Drsruli (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Death to Arabs" is not mentioned in Death to Israel either. It could be a "See Also" both ways. Zerotalk 07:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't equivocal, as I explained. (One is responsive; one is not.) Drsruli (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_to_Arabs&oldid=1206910143"