Talk:Death to Arabs

garbled english again.
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)

Bad English in quote.
"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)


 * It's just Twitter omission of little words that don't contribute to the meaning. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  09:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Lack of balance in the lead
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 &#183; c)  buidhe  16:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Responsive
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)
 * "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)

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