Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks

Reports of being pre-planned in the lead

@Andrevan I'm not sure "Some reports indicated the attacks on Israelis were pre-planned" is due in the lead, at least not until we have more reports on the matter then De Telegraaf & the Jerusalem Post repeating De Telegraaf.

We should also try to avoid MOS:WEASEL with phrases like "some reports" - If it's to be said at all, it should be explicitly attributed to De Telegraaf. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with explicit attribution, but if you want to remove those reports I think that would imbalance the lead and we should also remove the Ch4 tweets about flag-burning from the lead. They're just as valid Andre🚐 00:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The Ch4 tweet supplies a video where a member of the Amsterdam police describes the incident followed by Maccabi fans around a fire. We could change the flag burning to flags being torn down as there are plenty of reliable reports on that with accompanied videos, but that's in no way the same as a single report of potential pre-planning of the incident. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Torn down would be better Andre🚐 01:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it out from the lead altogether for now. De Telegraaf is not very clear on when it was announced. A day in advance, or a week? That's unclear. It only says "well in advance", so people could join from all of the Netherlands. But The Netherlands isn't big. For the "story" it is relevant it was announced before or after Wednesday night, and we don't know that. Dajasj (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. According to the report in the UK Telegraph[1], attacks on the Jewish football fans were planned in advance and co-ordinated using WhatsApp and Telegram. The Telegraph has seen messages from a group chat called Buurthuis, a Dutch word for a type of community centre, which were posted on Wednesday, the day before the match. One message says: “Tomorrow after the game, at night, part 2 of the Jew Hunt. Andre🚐 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I just an article by RTL Nieuws by a tech journalist focused on the spread of calls on Telegram and Snapchat. He has messages from Thursday.

But regardless, if you say "well in advance", I would think it was before Wednesday. Dajasj (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There is so much unknown. We only know there were calls online, but we do not known which calls have been followed up. So it is not possible to call people planners. Dajasj (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources say that they were planning and coordinating in advance, I'd say that'd be reason enough to call them planners. Andre🚐 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

But that's my point, I don't see them doing that. They say it was "planned" in advance, and show messages. But nowhere do they say they are planners or that people in that group did the attacks. It is not unlikely, and the messages are appaling, but I'm trying to avoid claims that are not clear yet. Dajasj (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

And now I am a bit confused why increased police presence on Wednesday is relevant for the section on Thursday? Should that not be discussed in the previous section? Dajasj (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't that relevant in the context of the planning that happened on Wednesday and the stuff that happened on Wednesday? I don't know about this split, anyway, Background and Attacks. Sounds like there were attacks happening in the background section. Maybe we should split it up differently. Andre🚐 10:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well chronologically we first discuss the Wednesday events, then the planning after the first incidents and then the Thursday events. But why would you say the police presence was increased for Wednesday evening while chronologically the article is after Wednesday evening? Dajasj (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to imply at the end of the "background" section which I just combined that things were calm, but it seems like there was a continued escalation. I think it's also misleading because the article implies the attacks weren't premeditated, but if that's the case how did Mossad and the police both warn and increase their protection? Not to mention we know that they were planning to come prepared with fireworks on Wednesday, the night before the game. Why are you so uncertain that this counts as premeditation? Andre🚐 10:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Mossad and police warned because there are general tensions around Gaza and Israel in the Netherlands, afaik. I am not saying they are not premeditated, I included the article from RTL Nieuws which included specific information about the calls for action. But it's relevant that the calls were after the casino incident, flag burning and taxi driver incidents, afaik. So yeah, it appears to be an escalation, with calls to action. But that is - I believe - different from planning. Dajasj (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It says here that Mossad[2] warned of a potential threat to Israelis and Jews. Not general tensions. They were requesting an immediate and significant increase in security for Israelis near the soccer stadium Andre🚐 10:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not a coherent interpretation of the wording. It would be an extraordinary theory for the alternative interpretation, such as a different five hundred men all wearing black hoodies and masks (not team colors) all ready to brawl, appearing spontaneously with no relation to the Whatsapp group where they planned to do exactly that. Scharb (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I concede that "well in advance" is not NPOV phrasing. "Pre-meditated since at least the night before" would better fit reporting from RS. Scharb (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The attcks were pre-planned as has be reported in the Jerusalem Post, WSJ and De Telegraaf. The way the lede is currently laid out is an insult to wikipedia - lets put upfront everything the fans did to justify the attacks and then as an afterthought mention that the attacks were planned in advance. This isn't to say the Israeli fans were well behaved and didn't say inflamatory stuff but seriously.... MaskedSinger (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

At the time, Jerusalem Post didn't independently report that attacks were pre-planned, but were just quoting De Telegraaf here.

Please assume good faith here as this is a current event where available information is rapidly changing, people are trying to handle volatile reporting. The details on what was/wasn't pre-planned are still being looked into by news orgs, but the Jerusalem Post's warnings from the Mossad might be referring to something different to what De Telegraaf is reporting. The Mossad's warnings seems to have been both a general warning over security, but also that they "received a single report regarding a targeted threat against an Israeli citizen, a former Border Police soldier."

With regards to WSJ articles however, I can't read them, so I can't say anything on them. If you have more details, please share what you can find. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Could we please clarify in the introduction that "in advance" means one day? See the text in the article itself. The introduction does not match that given its focus on one source which is vague about it. Dajasj (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga Copy/pasted straight from the article:

Messages circulating on the Telegram platform appeared to have been used to encourage and coordinate attacks, police said.

Telegram said that it closed down a group chat that might have been linked to the incidents in Amsterdam and that Telegram is prepared to cooperate with Dutch authorities. “Calls to violence are not tolerated on the Telegram platform,” Telegram Chief Operating Officer Mike Ravdonikas said.

One video verified by Storyful showed people taking down a Palestinian flag as a crowd cheered and chanted “F— you Palestine.”

Police said that on Wednesday night there had been minor scuffles in the city center involving supporters of the Maccabi, Fenerbahce and Ajax soccer teams. They said Maccabi supporters at one point on Wednesday removed a Palestinian flag from a facade and vandalized a taxi. A Palestinian flag was set on fire in another location, they said.

Authorities said taxi drivers appeared to be involved in planning to confront Maccabi supporters. They said taxi drivers had driven on Wednesday night to a casino where Maccabi supporters were gathered. Police said they evacuated the supporters and avoided a major confrontation at the casino despite minor scuffles.

There were clashes on Thursday afternoon between Maccabi supporters and other people, police said, which involved fights on both sides and heavy fireworks. At that point, police said they were generally able to keep the large groups separated.

They said problems arose late at night, after the game had ended, when people began attacking Maccabi supporters in different parts of the city. Police gathered a large group of Maccabi supporters to protect them and moved them to hotels by bus, they said. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

See archived version of this WSJ article for more details about the calls for a “Jew hunt” on social media https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/calls-for-jew-hunt-preceded-attacks-in-amsterdam-e3311e21 (Archived: https://archive.ph/lYoJB) WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be premature to b e in the lead, but it's weird it's not currently in the article at all. This should be covered in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It is: it mentions that there were calls for violence on social media, which is the most concrete evidence of planning. Israel also claims they had warned NL, which suggests that they uncovered a plan, but so far this has been denied by NL. This is also in the body. Dajasj (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Small update, but Trouw reports that they are still investigating possible planning before Wednesday, but no evidence had been found for that (my words). Dajasj (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that "Calls for ‘Jew Hunt’ Preceded Attacks in Amsterdam" Chupster811 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes "Jodenjacht" in Dutch is also reported by Telegraaf. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the Telegraaf uses the word in the title, but never clarifies who used the word. The messages in social media groups did not all target Jews, some specifically talk about the fans. The lede is not the place for general claims based on one group chat. Dajasj (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, one day in advance. Dajasj (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Videos of Maccabi fans running around carrying wooden planks and metal bars

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHIOYyJ95A I think some reference to this news report may be useful. It shows Maccabi fans in groups of 20-30 running around carrying makeshift weapons. It does seem like the Maccabi fans came out much worse off than those they fought with; however, my perception of this video is that Maccabi fans actually instigated the attacks. Would rather not call into question all the good work done here in putting together this article, but I get the impression that the narrative in the article is very biased in favour of the Maccabi fans. TagPro129 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We want to avoid original research on primary source clips like that, WP:OR Dazzling4 (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So the fact that this video clearly shows Maccabi Tel Aviv fans picking up metal pipes and wooden planks in order to attack people isn’t noteworthy and shouldn’t be included in the article? That’s the main point I’m making. Whether or not they instigated the attacks or not is up for debate, but the very least you can do is publish the facts. TagPro129 (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

TagPro129, it's actually not about "the facts" as you may find them on YouTube or elsewhere. Never mind the authenticity, whether they were really Maccabi fans, whether it was on that date, etc. etc. We now have confirmation that there were Maccabi fans who did this), but that's only because the NOS and others reported on it, as Dajasj points out below. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We should use reliable sources not YouTube channels describing themselves as "Humoristische journalistiek" (humorous journalism). Some video content has circulated out of context, e.g. Israeli fans mislabelled as locals and vice versa, so original research in this case is especially dangerous.

This is the best source I can see with something about this: https://zeteo.com/p/amsterdam-violence-maccabi-anti-arab-antisemitism-media BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Dutch public broadcaster has also reported on the vlogs: https://nos.nl/artikel/2544021-maccabi-fans-hadden-planken-en-riemen-politie-neemt-beelden-mee-in-onderzoek. Can be included (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This clip has been summarized in more up-to-date RS to be of the pogromists (black hoods, as in all the other videos) attacking Maccabee fans (yellow hoods) and random Jews. Scharb (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In the video, the commentator explicitly says they are picking them up in self-defense, as they were already under attack. You're pushing not just OR but misinformation. Scharb (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

How is the Spanish flood relevant ?

It looks like you’re trying to demonize the Israelis with something that had no relation to the attack. Spanish people didn’t attack them Kingoflevant (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What happened is that during a match, a moment of silence was called for the victims of the floods in Spain, however Maccabi Tel Aviv fans refused to honor it (likely because Spain had recently recognized the State of Palestine as a sovereign country) and began chanting "In Gaza there are no schools, because we killed all the kids". This moment of intense disrespect was filmed, such as the football fans chanting "death to arabs" and "let the IDF win, fuck the arabs", and you can watch it for yourself. I don't insinuate that you inherently agree with them, but you should try and be a bit more nuanced in regards to what happened, especially with western media consistently bending over backwards for Israel's government and atrocities. GabMen20 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@GabMen20, is there any claim in any source that not observing the minute of the silence motivated, inspired, contributed to or was cited in any way by the attackers? I'm all for nuance, but the question is: is it relevant?

The question is not whether Maccabi fans should have observed the minute of silence, or whether it was rude or disrespectful for them not to do so. The question is: does any reliable source make a factual claim about a link between the minute of silence for floods in Valencia and the targeting of Israelis on the streets of Amsterdam the same night. I have not seen such a claim, but feel free to provide it. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Dutch newspaper NRC says the stadium was mostly quiet, except for a small part of the Israeli supporters area.[3] Seems like we might be making it too big here Dajasj (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaeseLeon, is it really that relevant to include it in the lede? It looks like a minor thing in the broader context. Dajasj (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dajasj Of course it is. It shows how those hooligans were intent on attacking and insulting everything and everyone, including the memory of 200+ dead Europeans. Go imagine if someone had done something similar regarding Yad Vashem, it'd at the top of the lead and of every media outlet in the world. It also help explains why they might be badly received in Spain in the future too. MaeseLeon (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I have read, most violence seems to be related to Israel-Palestine, not too Spanish people. It seems unlikely that this has provoked violence (I have seen little sources either way). We shouldn't need to include everything wrong the supporters have done, in particular in the introduction. Dajasj (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Spanish floods line is leadworthy. Should go to the body. Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be in the lede. Not sure why it's even relevant for the body. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For sure it is relevant for the body. About the lead part if you want to be concise maybe, but there is no reason to don't mention something that several media remarked as part of the incidents of the day (here in the article we have 3 references but there are more obviously). In the videos online it is possible to listen them from the other side of the stadium. If you frame this as a confrontation/attack on Maccabi fans after a football match, then what they say and do in the stadium is absolutely relevant. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Should definitely go in body as key part of the events of 7 November (it's there now, with multiple reliable sources). Might not be due in lead though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the claim, made in reliable sources, about the relevance of the minute of silence to the floods? If there is no claim, then we can't include it. If there is a claim but it is peripheral/not made in most sources, perhaps in the body. If the consensus or significant amounts of sources for such a claim, we can discuss whether it should be in the lede.

But there has to be a direct claim made in our sources. That's just basic wikipedia policy. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, it's not a "key part", as far as I can tell from the Dutch news. It's one of the things that happened and it's mentioned in some sources. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2024

November 2024 Amsterdam attacks → 2024 Amsterdam football riot or 2024 Amsterdam riot – There is no single WP:COMMONNAME, so we must rely on WP:NDESC. "Riot" is most WP:CONSISTENT with most articles at Category:Association football hooliganism (1999 Rotterdam riots, 2008 UEFA Cup final riots, Querétaro–Atlas riot etc). "Riot" also more inclusively captures property damage and other acts of hooliganism that took place, which can't be described as "attacks". The word "football" or "soccer" in the title is necessary as that is the most recognizable aspect of this event. All the clashes centered around the football fans. "November" is unnecessarily WP:OVERPRECISE. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Note I've edited the proposal to also include 2024 Amsterdam riot as a possible title, given many support moving to "riot" but not necessarily to include "football".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Keep as-is or change to "Antisemitic attacks".

Renaming to include football is not NPOV, contradicting the POV of involved parties including Maccabi's owner, and downplays the extremism of the attacks which really had nothing to do with the game or any hooliganism, and everything to do with prejudice against the presence of Israelis and Jews.

Renaming it to include football carries misleading implications and minimizes the events. Unlike most football related incidents, the violence was not done spontaneously by supporters of either team but in a preplanned mob coordinated on social media that targeted Israelis and Jews while they were returning from the game. Scharb (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Scharb (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support - I agree that riot is a better description as it more closely encompasses the individual aspects of this page, including vandalism, threats, & harassment. I also agree that WP:CONSISTENT should apply here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, the most common reference is attacks not a riot. Andre🚐 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is "no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources". Certainly not "November 2024 Amsterdam attacks".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Almost all sources refer to it as "Amsterdam attacks." Andre🚐 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak support - I think "football riots" might be misleading, because it was not really related to the football itself. I mostly focus on Dutch media coverage: "Riots" ("rellen") appears to be pretty common[4][5][6] "Attacks" ("aanvallen") not so much as far as I can find, although obviously more specific incidents are described as attacks. Many sources generally refer to it as "Violence" ("Geweld"), which could also be an option. But based on Dutch sources, I would go for "riots" here. November might be needed in the title however, because I remember other incidents of violence earlier this year (although far less than this). Dajasj (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dajasj Thanks for providing those sources. As for disambiguating by November, do those other events already have an article on wikipedia, or have a reasonable chance of having an article? If not, then we don't need to disambiguate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, that'a true Dajasj (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I think "attacks" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME per Andre. But also, "riot" doesn't really capture the attacks conducted by several small groups, spread across the area, acting in coordination. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The attacks were primarily performed by pro-Palestinian protestors, not football fans. Both Ajax and Maccabi are primarily associated with Judaism, and the attacks were performed on Israelis because they were Israelis, not because of the football club they chose to support. If we're going by WP:NDESC, the definition of football hooliganism says it constitutes violence and other destructive behaviors perpetrated by spectators at association football events. Making the title consistent with other examples of football hooliganism falsely implies that it was primarily Maccabi fans rioting after the football game.

It's difficult to comment on what WP:COMMONNAME is because nobody has provided English-language sources. However, Google Trends indicates that "attack" is consistently more common than "riot".[7] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose football riot would imply this was football-related violence which it certainly was not, it was ethno-political violence that happened to involve one set of particular fans. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and for greater accuracy as 'riots' seems more fitting and encompassing.
Edit: to clarify, I support the use of 'riot', or alternatively 'clashes', but am neutral to the inclusion/exclusion of 'football' Mason7512 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it the COMMONNAME? Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think so, although it is hard to precisely and objectively measure. Here is a global Google search term comparison which seems to show 'riot' is used more: [8] Mason7512 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not the correct spelling though. Check the above comment by Chess. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it, the stand alone Amsterdam is misspelled (my apologies), but the two relevant search terms are spelled correctly, are they not? Mason7512 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The comparison by Chess ([9]) is not plural. so i made a 4-way comparsion ([10]) and it shows that 'riots' is slightly more popular than 'attack'. Mason7512 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That clearly shows that attack is more widely used in English-speaking countries. This also doesn't include only reliable sources. That is a graph of search term interest, and not usage in sources.Andre🚐 02:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it clearly shows that riots is more widely used. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"Race riots" might be the best term as it explains why the riot occurred. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chess , I believe "Race riot" is a great way to explain what happened (Ex.: Tulsa race massacre); I believe it is too early to change the title of the wiki. Waiting will allow more time for info to become public.

Sroth0616 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support replacing "attacks" with "riots" as that is the Common name (as demonstrated by Mason7512). The comparison is even clearer when quotes are used and all terms are compared (see 1 and 2). M.Bitton (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn't look at the plurals-only version; why exclude "Amsterdam attack" which is more prevalent than "Amsterdam riot"? I'm also not sure we should use phrase searches (quotes), excluding a variety of minor variations, such as "Attack in Amsterdam" which is more prevalent than "Riot in Amsterdam".

  Moreover, Google Trends is at best a rough proxy for prevalence in secondary coverage, which is what ultimately determines WP:COMMONNAMEs. Here I think it's best to look at secondary coverage directly. Even if we specifically search for articles containing "Amsterdam riot", most such articles still use "attack" more than "riot". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I already explained why "Amsterdam riots" is the WP:COMMONNAME and gave the relevant links to support it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• We should also consider not having a WP:POVNAME. "Amsterdam attacks" implies one side was doing all the attacking, while we do have RS that point out both sides partook in the clashes. Thus something like "riot" or "clashes" is more neutral. Sources say,
  • "police chief Peter Holla told reporters that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had attacked a taxi driver and burned a Palestinian flag"[11][12]
  • "Travelling fans verbally abuse locals and tear down Palestine flags before fights break out with Dutch youth"[13] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  What about "race riots"? It's a more accurate descriptor than "football riot". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support replacing "attacks" with "riot" or "riots", as well as ditching "November" from the title as no disambiguator is needed. Like VR said above, "attack" implies this was a one-sided attack, which it wasn't, and it could also be conflated with a terrorist attack such as Paris 2015. This was much closer to a football riot with political motives than an "attack", and RS support this. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this a support of adding "football riot", or just the word "riot"? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the name change to "riot" over "attack". If an option I would support "clashes" over both as it's more for the reasons that @Vice regent has said, as well as @Dajasj mention of the dutch 'geweld' directly translating to 'violence' which is more emblematic of clashes

"attacks" as a name, while appropriate in some cases, such as the Paris attacks of January 2015, (as mentioned by @Icantthinkofausernames) has a high risk of being pov-related in other cases. Bejakyo (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support 3skandar (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The term ‘Riots’ is more neutral, as it wasn’t only Maccabi fans who were attacked. While they may have suffered the most damage, it’s important to remember that they also provoked the incident by chanting anti-Arab slogans, attacking an Arab taxi driver, and disrespecting the Palestinian flag. All of this happened before the main attack on the Maccabi fans. Therefore, this was a riot where both sides were harmed, not just an attack on Maccabi fans alone. GrabUp - Talk 07:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The article describes instances of violence, assault and car ramming by pro-Palestinians in general and not football hooliganism. There are clear differences between attacks and hooliganism. 178.81.55.110 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "Football", Neutral/Oppose on "riots" over "attacks". The idea that football was The word "football" or "soccer" in the title is necessary as that is the most recognizable aspect of this event is ... well, is anyone seriously claiming that what's notable is that the victims were soccer fans, and not that they were Israelis? That their identification as fans of a football team was key, and their nationality incidental? This suggestion is absurd to the point that it shouldn't need to be addressed. I recognise that it would be inconvenient to the preferred narrative of some editors here to highlight the religious identification of the victims (at least in the minds of the attackers, who gave ample evidence that they were targeting the victims as Jews or Israelis interchangeably). Nonetheless, the gaslighting has to stop somewhere, let's draw a line in the sand here at the very least. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose sport in title but Support changing attacks to riots. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose mention of football and of riots; riots has different implications.

Supporting 2024 Amsterdam violence as there was also attacks by the Israeli soccer fans including their vandalizing of a taxi vehicle, which initiated the violence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the name should be 2024 Amsterdam attacks on Israeli soccer fans. More informative and less ambiguous than any other suggestion so far. יוניון ג'ק (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to that - it wasn't a one-way attack and such a title is entirely misleading...

The physical attacks were one-way. If there were absolutely no attacks on the Israelis - the remaining events were not be notable enough to sustain a wiki article. יוניון ג'ק (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There were physical attacks by the Israelis as well. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Move to something like 2024 Amsterdam riot or 2024 Amsterdam violence. It went beyond football. GiantSnowman 11:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. No "attacks", but hooligans doing hooligan stuff and looking for trouble and finding it. Further, it went beyond football when they started vandalizing property and insulting the 200+ victims of the 2024 Valencia floods. "Riots" define it better. MaeseLeon (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - the maccabi fans didn't help themselves by not behaving well, but they are the ones that were attacked. They were attacked for being Israeli/Jewish. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

MaskedSinger Did they not attack an innocent Muslim taxi driver? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Did they? Who says he was innocent? In any event, this is a non sequitur that is besides the point. When there was hard core violence and attacks, it only happened in one direction.

Why don't we do everything we can not to be like all people who misbehaved in Amsterdam and do all we can to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's what I'd love but sadly it doesn't seem to be possible  :( MaskedSinger (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There was physical violence in both directions. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Enough of this bothsidesism and DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence. The newsworthy thing was that random people were attacked in the street for being Jewish by 500 organized masked men demanding passports.

Racist chants at soccer matches are barely encyclopedically noteworthy. Antisemitic chants at soccer matches certainly never have been, and have never resulted in Jews hunting and beating people in the streets. Scharb (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Scharb (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of a "DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence"? Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator Not you, I'm referring to the major DARVO attempt by pro-Palestinians on social media, and many editors seem to be have been influenced by it/are perpetuating it. There is never an excuse to demand passports and beat people up if they're from the "wrong country," the videos should horrify every human being, as there is no context that could justify them, and I caution the WP community not to lose sight of that. Like how we report the Holocaust, we don't give equal weight to the deniers or the justifiers. Scharb (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. It really seemed like that comment was directed towards me. I said:

There was physical violence in both directions.

and you replied by saying:

Enough of this bothsidesism and DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence.

When you say there is a:

major DARVO attempt by pro-Palestinians on social media, and many editors seem to be have been influenced by it/are perpetuating it

should I take that I am one of those editors? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger - Their comment wasn't a non sequitur though. Your comment was based off of the idea there were 1-sided attacks. @Vice regent informed you that that wasn't true.

If you don't know the details you should read up on the incident first & please don't invoke WP:BATTLEGROUND when it's not relevant, it will start more fights then it'll stop. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Dutch Prime Minister said "There were “completely unacceptable anti-Semitic attacks on Israelis”,"

Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said the attacks were by "antisemitic hit-and-run squads."

"Antisemitic criminals attacked and assaulted visitors to our city, in hit-and-run actions

And you're like "hold on, they attacked a taxi driver...."

The fact that you can even compare the two is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. As I've said many times since Thursday, the Maccabi fans didn't behave well and they didn't help their own cause but this is no justification for the violence and attacks they were on the receiving end of. When there were attacks on Thursday night it wasn't because that specific fan attacked a taxi driver or did whatever else, it was because they were jewish/israeli. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Israelis also committed physical violence. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did they say about them attacking people's homes, pulling down Palestinian flags and chanting "there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left" and "let the IDF fuck the Arabs"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's say there were 2 kids at school. A pulled B's hair and called him names. B responded by breaking A's arm, concussing him and sending him to hospital. The 2 can't be compared in any way shape or form. No one is denying the poor behavior of the Israeli fans but their chants and pulling down flags can't be compared what they were on the receiving end of. They were attacked and thus this is what the article should be called. What the Israeli fans did wouldn't be sufficient for an article. What they were on the receiving end of is. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

These are adults chanting genocidal songs. What kind of human would say such a thing about the Gaza children? M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You should have added that to the comment above it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A lot of content on Wikipedia would not justify their own articles. Inclusion is not based on that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what WP:BATTLEGROUND means, so please WP:AGF. Investigations are still underway, so we should make no assumptions. The remarks from officials are broad denunciations made quickly after the incident, they are not meaningful comments on the specific order of events, nor are they definitive proof of potential motives. There is evidence this was not one-sided & that is important to consider.

"In addition to the many images of violence against Israelis in the center of Amsterdam, videos have also emerged showing Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters misbehaving in the city. These images make it clear that the supporters not only shouted anti-Arab and racist slogans and pulled a Palestinian flag from a window before the match, but were also violent after the match."

"A taxi driver was also assaulted, after which a group of taxi drivers sought confrontation with the hooligans." (Emphasis mine)

"There are also images circulating showing hooligans beating a taxi with an iron chain and kicking a driver. After that assault, a group of taxi drivers chased the supporters into a casino on Max Euweplein." (Emphasis mine)

"Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”." Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment - When one typically talks about football riots it's between the fans of the two teams in question ie England fans rioted with Germany fans; Arsenal fans rioted with Napoli fans, etc. The fact that Ajax has nothing to do with and no-one is saying those attacking the Israelis were Ajax fans proves this can't be called a football riot. It happened after a football match but the attacks had nothing to do with football. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you add your bolded comment to your !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I would leave football out for that reason. Lewisguile (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support renaming into "Violence" or "Riots", but definetly not atatcks Pusf.smbd (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because, like others said, the violence had little to do with football. I do support removing "November" as it's unnecessary disambiguation. Indifferent about "attacks" vs "riots". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  It has everything to do with football hooliganism. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It is like an attempt to wash the crimes with language. מתיאל (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

  Or maybe it's a good faith edit suggestion. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Euphemism מתיאל (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Riot" is a euphemism? Iostn (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  unlikely, given that the vast majority of sources refer to the attacks as "attacks" (unidirectional) and not a "riot" (bidirectional) Dazzling4 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's unlikely they are acting in good faith? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bitspectator: Dazzling4 is clearly accusing those who disagree with them of acting in bad faith. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - this was not primarily a sports riot, it was an attack on people for their ethnicity. Qualiesin (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I also oppose, it started with the football event, but went way before that, and from perspective seemed to also start before that. This was way more than football rioting and most people know that. Govvy (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Govvy Just for the sake of clarification, are you also against 2024 Amsterdam riot as a title or are you only against the mention of sports? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  The current title is fine, what happened has gone far beyond the sport. Tensions were already there before the football match, the football match is just a catalyst effect. Govvy (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. I don't think football is that necessary of a descriptor either. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: It appears that the Maccabi fans were behaving very poorly beforehand in a way reminiscent of (racist) soccer hooligans, and were attacked largely for that reason. So I actually do think it makes sense to call this a "football riot", albeit a heavily racially charged one. Loki (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  You don't get to choose the name based on your own perception of the event, almost all sources refer to the attacks as "attacks" WP:COMMONNAME Dazzling4 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  You don't get to dictate to other editors what they should choose. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pointing out that Wikipedia policy does not allow us to editorialize our own name for an event based on our own individual perception of that event, which you don't seem to understand either. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since you accused those who disagree with you of acting in bad faith (I have the diff for when it's needed), you will simply be ignored for now. Repeat it again and you will take a trip to ANI. Hope that helps. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support riot. Football isn't needed and could be misleading. Although this did include attacks, it is more accurate to say riots, since that also covers property damage, chanting, etc. It also has the benefit of being slightly more common according to Ngrams above, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. I'm neutral on the date, since WP:NCWWW does suggest we usually use it (but 2024 may indeed be sufficient, if there haven't been any other riots in Amsterdam this year). Lewisguile (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support 2024 Amsterdam riot as best title. 2024 Amsterdam football riot is ok, but not as good.Smallchief (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support moving to November 2024 Amsterdam riot as per WP:NPOV. The current title November 2024 Amsterdam attacks is biased: it misleadingly suggests that Maccabi Tel-Aviv fans were victims instead of being also enacters of violence (e.g. when they attacked a Dutch-Moroccan taxi-driver & others). Erminwin (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support "2024 Amsterdam riot(s)" or "November 2024 Amsterdam riot(s)". I agree with the points that Erminwin raised above. Furthermore, the two titles I mentioned aptly describe what happened last Thursday. Vida0007 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support "November 2024 Amsterdam riots", explicitly plural since the rioting has yet to stop. The attacks are just one aspect of the riots described on our page and its sources. I oppose the inclusion of "football" in the title, because the events clearly have much more to do with the Israeli wars than with ordinary hooliganism (presumably many participants cared little about the match, including many of the attacked and protesting taxi drivers). Support for inclusion of "November" to differentiate from for instance 2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupations (edited to include signature and "November" argument) Joortje1 (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Weak support "2024 Amsterdam riots" or "November 2024 Amsterdam riots" per above. Strong preference against "football". Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, I think riots is more NPOV. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support 2024 Amsterdam football riot. The violence was initiated by and very much associated with football hooligans. Isoceles-sai (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. It should be renamed to "2024 Amsterdam pogrom". Yilku1 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support either nom'd option, for the reasons other Support'ers have listed, though for brevity and clarity's sake I think "November 2024 Amsterdam Riot" is probably the way to go. (Especially since "football" is not a universally understood term despite being accurately used in this context and in RS from this part of the world.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  This !vote doesn't make sense. How can you strongly support either nom'd option if you prefer "riot" to "football riot"? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME. This change would create the false understanding among our readers that all happened was a clash between football fans. What really happened was a targeted attack on Israelis across the city because they were Israelis, hours after the game. That's why the sources predominantly use 'attacks' and not 'riots'. HaOfa (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Vast majority of sources refer to this situation as "attacks."

Sources for "attacks":

PBS: [14]

CBS: [15]

CNN: [16]

NBC: [17]

MSNBC: [18]

AP News: [19]

BBC: [20]

Reuters: [21]

New York Times: [22]

Washington Post: [23]

Politico: [24]

Fox News: [25]

JPost: [26]

LBC: [27]

US News: [28]

Sources for "Riot":

euronews: [29] - note that they include today's (Nov 12) arson attacks.

Fox News: [30] - they refer to the entire situation as "riots" for multiple days. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you just referring to the headlines? A quick search finds "riot" or "rioter" in most of these. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you can find the word "riot" inside the body of the article doesn't make that the common sentiment of the articles. Their headlines all refer to the situation as "attacks." Dazzling4 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Their headlines all refer to the situation as "attacks."

WP:HEADLINES. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Of the first 7 sources, here are paragraphs from within the first 3 paragraphs where riots or attacks were mentioned. Note that the attackers are sometimes called "rioters" but this does not allow us to characterize the situation as a "riot."

PBS:

Attackers assaulted Israeli fans overnight after a soccer match in Amsterdam, leaving five people hospitalized, Dutch authorities said Friday. Dozens were arrested.

CBS:

Antisemitic rioters "actively sought out Israeli supporters to attack and assault them" after a soccer match in Amsterdam, authorities in the Netherlands said Friday, with police reporting five people hospitalized and dozens detained after a night of violence that the mayor said had shamed the city.

CNN:

Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said criminals on scooters searched the city in search of Maccabi supporters in “hit-and-run” attacks.

NBC:

Roving gangs on scooters attacked and beat Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam, the Dutch capital, overnight in an outburst of what authorities called antisemitic violence.

MSNBC:

The violence, in which Maccabi fans were chased down and attacked, resulted in the arrest of 62 people by police and the declaration of a three-day ban on protests in the city.

AP News:

Israeli fans were assaulted after a soccer game in Amsterdam by hordes of young people apparently riled up by calls on social media to target Jewish people, Dutch authorities said Friday. Five people were treated at hospitals and dozens were arrested after the attacks, which were condemned as antisemitic by authorities in Amsterdam, Israel and across Europe.

BBC:

Israeli football fans have described being attacked by groups of young men in Amsterdam, with some left with injuries including broken noses. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable analysis. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out that one of the most commonly used videos in the media to support the term ‘attacks’ on Maccabi fans was in fact the opposite, as the original photographer reported: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HFM_V1rnPA I don't want to say (I don't mean to say) that Maccabi fans were not victims of violence, but (just that) it has been reported that media that used the term attack did so using this video as an argument. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support (for riot) in general the word "attacks" has been the first reaction of the main media, now when we have more information the media begin to use "riots". Obviously it has been framed as Israel-Arabs conflict, but few years ago when the clash of holigans happened with locals that resulted in episodes not so different from this one in terms of arrests and street violence the term ‘riot’ was always used. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason some media have used the word "riot" is because unrest has continued even after the Israelis have left. The article briefly mentions the tram arson for example. If unrest continues, I would support changing the name to riots. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not totally sure about your interpretation of the underlying reason. Maybe you are right and it is what motivates the media to switch to the term ‘riots’ to describe what has been going on. But it could be that they understand better that the riots were started the night before by some Maccabi fans (before the episodes of violence against some Maccabi fans took place), that also makes the term riots more appropriate. AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Merge from section on AFC Ajax?

Before seeing this page, I created a section (which now includes contributions from other users) about this event on the page for AFC Ajax, now in § November 2024 attacks. I think this page includes most of the information that is in there, but there are a couple of key things that are different or missing:

• CNN updated the number of arrests from 62 to 63; this page still has the old number
• There are some sources implicating Uber drivers in the attacks (I cited YWN, Washington Free Beacon, Jerusalem Post, and New York Sun; additional related sources I've now found include Israel Hayom, The Times, JFeed, Ynet, and SOFX); this point does not appear to be mentioned here

What would be the best way of dealing with this? I can help out some more as needed, but I have a finite amount of time in the day and other things to do, and I consider myself to be better at finding sources than making use of them, so if someone else is able and willing to help with this, I would appreciate it.

P.S. I came across Ground News's aggregation of sources about this event; would this be a good link to put in an External Links or Further Reading section?

Solomon Ucko (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked Dutch sources a few hours ago, still 62 according to the public prosecutor.

I would leave out Uber for now. From what I have read, taxi drivers in general were involved. I don't think it is relevant to highlight one (international) company Dajasj (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it.

I'm leaving the arrest count alone.

I've added the Uber stuff to the "Jewish groups and figures" subsection of the "Response" section, instead of adding it in the "Events" section, since comments about Uber were part of the response, but as you said, they were not uniquely to blame, and I have also added a caveat accordingly.

I've added an "External links" section with Ground News.

Meanwhile, the section I added to the AFC Ajax page has been, justifiably, deleted.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't think the external link is allowed based on WP:EL, more specifically WP:ELNO #9. Dajasj (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe... On the other hand, could it quality as WP:ELYES #3 or WP:ELMAYBE #3 or possibly WP:ELMAYBE #4? I don't feel very strongly about this, though, so feel free to remove it if you think it does more harm than good.

FTR, the summary in the AFC Ajax article is now back as a sentence in § Jewish connection.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

disruptive editing

requesting that @Techiya1925 please cease repeatedly editing in a way that is seemingly disruptive and unilateral on an article that is under active arbitration. Bejakyo (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

These edits are by no means disruptive; each one is well-sourced. The only reason anyone might want to delete this content is because they disagree with what it conveys, not due to a lack of sourcing. Let the arbitration process continue, but my intent is not to edit disruptively—I am trying to help protect Wikipedia’s credibility. Techiya1925 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is unrelated to what's conveyed by sources, but with the contributions provided lacking in WP:Neutrality, particularly regarding WP:Undue. A key issue to mind is the claim that "many sources say" as opposed to "some sources say". Neutrality is of course a pillar of wikipedia's credibility. As well some of the contributions seem to have unintentionally veered into Wikipedia:OR as @Dajasj has pointed out, with cited sources not backing up the added claims. Bejakyo (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You can honestly read this article and say the WP:Undue WP:Neutrality violation is done by me? That is absurd, and confusing.

Why didn’t you switch it from “many” to “some”? Why did you delete the whole paragraph?

Please explain where my edits have veered into Wikipedia:OR. Techiya1925 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, see the section about Coordinated. Dajasj (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if its confusing, but this is why matters such as this are better discussed in an articles talk page and with consensus building among wikipedia contributors.

The paragraph in question had more issues than just "many" or "some" As I mentioned in my message, @Dajasj pointed out issues regarding WP:OR (to which I would also also state the added issue of WP:Verifiability, as the sources you cited with links do not back the claim, and I could not locate the unlinked citations to verify their claims. Likewise the paragraph suffered from WP:Undue and WP:Neutrality Bejakyo (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s interesting you’re so eager to lecture on WP:Neutrality and WP:Undue while dismissing fully sourced material from reputable outlets that directly reported on the pogrom targeting Jews. The edits simply reflect what many major media sources have already established about the incident.

It’s odd that, despite such clear evidence, you’re eager to sideline this as though it’s some fringe claim.

Repeating WP:OR and WP:Verifiability doesn’t magically make these valid points.

I am totally fine with waiting for more information, once investigations have been conducted, to add the word coordinated. The reason I chose the reference that I did is because the title is literally, "Revealed: How Pro-Palestinian mob organised via WhatsApp to 'Hunt Jews' across Amsterdam". Key word being ORGANIZED which implies coordination. I will wait for more articles to come out. Techiya1925 (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not particularly fringe as you claim. WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and WP:Neutrality are cornerstones of wikipedia.

To reiterate for a third time, the sources you have provided do not back up your claims.

regarding the sources for the claims of your contribution:

the CNN source mentions nothing of a pogrom or of a coordination targeted attack. The NYT likewise does not describe it as a progrom. The collive.com source, and the Russian source korrespondent.net are not estabshlied relliable sources, with only collive.com calling it a pogrom (and even then, only in the title, not in the body of the text). The other two sources, despite being implied to be online, seem to be unlocatable from my searches, and thus unverifiable. Bejakyo (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Let’s run through some of the articles that I cited, yeah?

1. Title: "Massive Jewish Pogroms Occurred in Amsterdam" (Korrespondent)

2. "Dozens of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attacked in the Netherlands: 'Pogrom.' The IDF to send a rescue mission," (Ynet)

3. "The Pogrom in the Netherlands: Seven Missing - 'Examining Reports of Hostages'," (Maariv)

4. The CNN article you are talking about: "Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said criminals on scooters searched the city in search of Maccabi supporters in “hit-and-run” attacks…" No coordinated targeting?

5. "Pogrom in Amsterdam: Muslim Mob Attacks Israelis After Game" (ColLive)

6. Not only Israeli but Dutch officials also characterized the attack as antisemitic

My edits mentioned two things: the Dutch officials announcing that it was an antisemitic attack, and the articles that discuss it being a pogrom.

I don’t understand what you are trying to get at, that by providing facts about the situation that aren’t convenient for you I’m not being neutral? And you, by sitting here removing things you don’t like, are being neutral? Techiya1925 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

to run through these with you again

• 1 - source states Massive Jewish riots, not pogroms, and beyond that is a rather obscure and unestablished source
• 2 and 3 - currently not verifiable, as previously mentioned, due to them not being url-linked, and my searches for them not coming up with the source articles in question. Feel free to link them.
• 4 - does not state coordination, interprating it as such is WP:OR
• 5 - is not an established reliable source, and is pretty clearly
• 6 - While you've not provided a source for this ("someone said this" isn't a citable source) it's a moot point as 6 does not back up your claims

Even if your claim that you are "only providing the facts" were true, Wikipedia is not a place for true information, but verifiable information. It's a subtle but foundational difference. Bejakyo (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Anybody who has a brain can look at what you are saying, and how ridiculous it is. Techiya1925 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

please be mindful that wp:civility also applies to talk page discussion Bejakyo (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Techiya1925 It can be aggravating dealing with some of the people on this part of Wikipedia. The contentiousness means we all have to step up and be picture-perfect in our conduct.

Please keep civil and mind your behavior, although I very much understand your frustration.

I am in the process, in my sandbox, of finding multiple RS that fit the claim, so we can salvage your constructive edits. @Bejakyo, if we look at the Wikipedia conduct for disputes, don't you agree that would have been the proper way to handle this? Scharb (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

1RR violations

I have just noticed that Techiya1925 has seemingly performed no less than [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] ten 1RR violations within 24 hours. Are there any admins editing here? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

90% of these are my own edits, that had been removed without explanation. And they were done before I was warned about this reversion policy. I understand the way things work here now, and in due time, after discussions, those edits will be back in some form. Because none of it is fringe.

I don’t bother messing with your work, and I make sure my work is cited well.

I will keep editing in good faith. You seem to want to get rid of me badly though! Techiya1925 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Techiya1925: please assume good faith when editing alongside other users. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am doing my best to assume good faith. Although it isn’t always easy. I will still assume good faith. All of my edits have been done with good intention. Techiya1925 (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not true, three of these violations were performed after Techiya1925 was informed by Bejakyo that this article was under active arbitration on 08:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC). Now that you know about this reversion policy, please familiarize yourself Techiya1925 with WP:1RR, which is strictly enforced. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The gaslighting will not work. You can’t attempt to block everyone you disagree with. Stop being a malicious actor. Techiya1925 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Techiya1925’s edit warring along with continuation of bad faith accusations despite being warned by an admin about importance of avoiding latter is increasingly problematic and making this an unhealthy place to edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an example of someone trying to take advantage of the system. Techiya1925 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, some editors frequently initiate edit wars with good-faith editors on a regular basis in an attempt to balk them into violating 1RR, get them banned, and thus systemically eliminate editors with opposing perspectives from Wikipedia community. @Makeandtoss Isn't your own conduct frequently under review? Aren't you in ARBCOM right now? You shouldn't be so hostile and draconian when you've benefited from such leniency. Scharb (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I barely edited this article, so your unfounded accusations are quite problematic, and should be retracted. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Excessive coverage of responses?

Twice as much space is given in the article to responses as to the actual events; this hardly seeems appropriate for an encyclopaedia and suggests that the events and this article are being used for propaganda. Jontel (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's always the case with ongoing events. It is easier to write someone's response than trying to write a nuanced description of events. Probably in a few years, we can select what was relevant and what was not. Dajasj (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, there is indeed excessive coverage of responses. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people have commented very prominently on this, including top European politicians. That is an aspect of the event. So I would expect an article like this to contain quite a lot of responses. Andreas JN466 11:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it is usual for Wikipedia to do this, but let's be honest: the average future reader won't be interested in most responses. Dajasj (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I indeed do not think the average future reader of this encyclopedia will be very interested in the response to these events from a former Greek minister of finance WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor in what the reponse of a Swedish academic to the response of Netanyahu was WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm just commenting here to say that I've taken a stab at condensing the responses section, with the "other" category removed as per a suggestion by @Makeandtoss. Does this look better? I'm happy to revert that bit if there's consensus that it was better, but I thought I'd try to make it work first. Lewisguile (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be slimmed down further. I've removed reactions from non-government officials, news outlets and the Palestinian Football Association. I think the statement from Steffen Seibert can be removed as well, even though he is a government official. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@AyubuZimbale I don't see a supposed consensus on which sources to keep aside from the consensus that the reactions section is too long. Please discuss here before reverting the change as some sort of consensus.

I am proposing the following removals:

Reactions from non-government officials, news outlets, the Palestinian Football Association and government officials are not relevant to the situation, i.e. Steffen Seibert. All of these are given undue weight. WP:RSUW Dazzling4 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed this extensively, and it was agreed to include:

(a) In Amsterdam, the Jewish organisation Erev Rav and the Stop Racism and Fascism Platform... Both were the organizers of the commemoration of the Kristallnacht which has been often mentioned in the media and by Netherlands politicians. The event sadly was cancelled due to these events, so this is an important consequence for the Jewish community in Netherlands

(b) Gideon Levy: also extensively discussed with an agreement that it should be kept as he is a very relevant voice in Israel.

(c) The paragraph about Forward reported ... has been (I think) less discussed but it was one of the first contributions and I think this should be discussed before removal.

(d) The Palestinian Football Association, I don't know.

I don't think that the reaction section is too long. I think actually that it is lacking of further responses. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the discussions here but perhaps that is due to the number of threads in this talk page. I'll open a new discussion for it. You can undue the edits. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think that it is the other way around: please don't remove the text of others editors that were working hard these days without a clear consensus on the removal. Such removal can be disheartening for those editors. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, I'll open a new discussion. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reactions from journalists and academia

The user AyubuZimbale added two reactions to the Response section of the article, from journalist Mehdi Hasan and academic Ashok Swain, and they reinstated it after I removed it. Per WP:1RR I will not be reverting the edit again.

As I explained on my user talk page, I do not think these quotes are noteworthy enough to be included, and they give undue weight to less significant POVs. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am fine for me if you remove them, but with a explanation (that was missing). So I reverted the removal and I asked to give a feedback about it. There is a strong impact in the Muslim community in USA of journalist Mehdi Hasan, so it is unclear that Deborah Lipstadt has a more relevant voice in terms in direct world impact. My opinion is that the responses of the civil society: important journalist and academics are relevant but I also understand that we need to limit the number of reactions. So, again, I am fine if you remove them. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed myself the academic Ashok Swain. Regarding Mehdi Hasan, I will accept your final decision. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal of Hasan's quote -- the section cites national leaders; he is a journalist, and not (like Biden or Lipstadt) speaking on behalf of the government. DNL (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Proceed then and remove it! (please don't use bold unless you think it is really necessary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the bold. I can't remove it as I do not have enough edits over the last 30 days. DNL (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning of the Spanish flood vicitims

Why someone would remove of mentioning the fact that the Maccabi hooligans refused to respect and remain silent for the Spanish flood victims recently? There have been sources cited originally before the removal. Stop ruining Wikipedia's reputation of being extremely bias, refusal of telling the truth and spread misinformation up to the point that if people read this article without looking up in social media, people will ended blame the Pro-Palestine protestors instead the Maccabi hooligans, who were the ones who started the riots first. Stop believing the BBC and other pro-Israel media. Qhairun (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly mentioned in the second paragraph, if you think it should be included also in other section, please indicate it in a constructive way so we can improve step by step this page (it is not being easy). At the moment there are many people working hard to describe as best as possible what has happened. You can see that the article starts to include references from different media, you can try to help with that. AyubuZimbale (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I still think it can be removed from the lede to be honest. It still remains very unlikely that the silence incident provoked violence, given all the other incidents. Dajasj (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lede a little. Take a look and see what you think? Lewisguile (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Please @Lewisguile you are changing many things that need to be discussed more and that has been discussed and not yet agreed, people has been working hard these yesterday and the day before yesterday and you fast edits can be disheartening to several authors. Please discuss more with the people already involved. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw some problems and took a stab at fixing them. If there's anything in particular you think should be changed/reverted, please let me know. I'm always happy to discuss. Lewisguile (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your words, and thank you for your help to improve the page. AyubuZimbale (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that the silence incident has a lot of mentions in media and a large number of reactions, and has generated a strong discomfort for many people. It hardly something to avoid in the lead of the article. You can think that is very unlikely, but at this point it is just your opinion. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's currently still in the lede. I think it fits where it is now? Lewisguile (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's original research both ways to be honest. I see Dutch media mentioning the silence, but never pointing to it as cause. NRC more specifically noted it was only a small group of the Israeli supporters disrupting the silence. It also happened after the calls for attacks started on social media. There is also no evidence pro-Spanish sentiment among attackers in the sources. It is my personal opinion ofcourse, but the other incidents appear to be far worse. So yeah, I don't see why we are highlighting it in the lede in the broader documented incidents. Dajasj (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to be only worried about the "cause" as we are reporting what it happened in the several days ("There is also no evidence pro-Spanish sentiment among attackers in the sources."=> it is not about this). This is an important point of the situation described in many media which is also descriptive of the some Maccabi fans. I don't see why we have to hide this information. AyubuZimbale (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant, given the content of the chanting, which ties it into the other events. It was part of the overall picture of protest/disorder/violence that occurred. Lewisguile (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@AyubuZimbale you say that we are just reporting what happened in the several days - this is just not what the article is for. This is an article about the attacks on Israeli football fans in Amsterdam last week. Not about everything that happened in Amsterdam last week, or even everything that happened to or was done by Israeli football fans in Amsterdam last week. To merit inclusion in the article, content must be relevant to the topic. That requires a claim by a reliable source that the content is relevant to the topic. Find the RS that makes the connection and we can discuss how prominently the content should appear, but without such a source, it shouldn't appear at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There were references that mentioned that, that were included in the article that others deleted without discussion. In the article we were writing two days ago we have the description of several days (which still is mostly there) so yes from the beginning the article has been about several days... at least until today massive changes most of them without discussion. Even more, there was a discussion about changing the title to better describe this. In my eyes several deletions today of something others included and are discussing is not the best way to proceed. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted without discussion ignores the discussion above, which precedes this one, and where you have commented. I have no problem with describing the events of several days, inasmuch as the content is relevant to the attacks which are the subject of the article.

No source has been provided that failing to observe the minute of silence was relevant to the attacks. Yes, it occurred on the same day. But no one has cited it as motivation, as a contributing factor, or anything else. Provide a source that makes the explicit claim that it's relevant please. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The term silence is mentioned in 14% of the referenced sources. ElderOfZion (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Qhairun I was the person you reverted. I have asked in one of the talk page sections on this topic above what the relevance of the minute of silence is to the attacks. Specifically, what sources make a direct claim of relevance? I of course have also noticed that sources mention it, but I have not seen them make such a claim. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact they frequently mention it shows it's relevant? Lewisguile (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SYNTH says "do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Including this material implies that it is relevant to the chain of events, or the motivation of the attacks on fans. If a source explicitly makes that claim that it's relevant in some way, let's talk. Otherwise it should be removed. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Image added

Hello. Maybe it would be great to discuss here the image added by someone. I am not so sure about it. Is valuable? Does it truly represent the pro-palestine social movements in Amsterdam?, or is it just a random poster of many that we can find in a town in Europe? AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s basically an activist sticker pasted onto an encyclopaedia page. Adding that picture to this article is in essence the same thing as pasting an activist sticker on a lamppost. The image conveys the message: the attacks described in this article were justified. WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Using the term "genocidal" to describe anti-Arab chants

I think it's important to describe the anti-Arab chants as genocidal, especially if the chants themselves aren't quoted. "Death to Arabs" and "no children left" are not only anti-Arab, as is written in the lede, they are explicit examples of genocidal speech. "Genocidal" is definitely strong language and should be used with caution, but IMO it's important to use it when it clearly applies, as it does in this case. WikiFouf (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, not our interpretations. Unless a large number of reliable sources use that language, we can't describe their chants as such. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy for the language used to be included. I thought long and hard about this myself, and considered something like "glorifying violence" or "incitement to violence", but felt it's tricky territory. Including the actual words said without passing comment is less fraught. Lewisguile (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would make the argument that "genocidal", even if it sounds stronger, is more accurate and closer to the actual speech than your suggestions. But in any case, yes, I think using the actual words is better than having "anti-Arab" as the only characterization. WikiFouf (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think using the term "genocidal" here is an interpretation rather than a factual description of what is literally being said. "From the river to the sea" can have different interpretations, for example, but "Death to Arabs" is unequivocally genocidal. I think describing that and "no children left" as simply "anti-Arab" is deceiving.

(As an aside, we should also take into account that mainstream media have a pretty well documented bias in the language they use to describe both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I made this point a while ago in another talk page regarding the term "massacre". And whereas "massacre" is emotional language, "genocidal" has a clear definition that matches "death to Arabs" literally.) WikiFouf (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's already WP:OR to suggest that the same Israelis who were being attacked were the ones who chanted, to add further WP:UNDUE commentary about the characteristics of the chants is unwarranted commentary failing WP:NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I never talked about whether or not these are the same Israelis. My point is about how the slogans, when mentioned, should be described. WikiFouf (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not you mentioned it. Please keep in mind the name of the page you are editing. What matters is what the article in sum says. It is OR and UNDUE and not NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a red herring. They are talking about the songs. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I believe is an accurate description here. "Genocidal" is an incredibly loaded word & shouldn't be used unless you have extensive reliable sources to back it up. MOS:LABEL. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

But "death to Arabs" doesn't leave anything to interpretation or personal belief. It calls for the death of a people, it's genocidal in the literal sense. The fact that it's a strong or "loaded" term doesn't negate that it has an actual definition which clearly applies in this case. WikiFouf (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Those songs are genocidal (this is a fact). Is there any other way to describe "let the IDF win and fuck the Arabs. Ole ole, ole ole ole. Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there!"? M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look what sources there are:

• Het Parool has an opinion piece titled "Opinion: 'Every Maccabi fan should have thrown his scarf in the bin after the genocidal slogans over Gaza'". [42]
• Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (Dutch public broadcaster) quotes Dutch Denk (political party) politician Stephan van Baarle saying in the Dutch House of Representatives that "hypocritical politicians were silent as Maccabi thugs chanted racist and genocidal slogans about Gaza, vandalised Palestinian flags and attacked a taxi driver". [43] His statement is quoted by a good number of other Dutch outlets as well.
• The New York Times quotes van Baarle too: "Where were the police when Maccabi thugs chanted genocidal and racist slogans about Gaza?" [44]
• Trouw mentions in its live blog (15:37, 8-11-2024) a complaint from the Palestinian Authority that "genocidal chants" ("Genocidale gezangen tegen Arabieren en Palestijnen") preceded the attacks. [45]
• Middle East Eye says "The hooligans' mindset aligns with the genocidal culture that has permeated Israeli society since 7 October 2023". [46]
• The New Arab says, 'As reported by the Clash Report, the Maccabi fans, who were protected by police, “chanted anti-Arab slurs and a genocidal song in Amsterdam”, including lines such as “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left”, “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs” and “Fuck you Palestine”.' [47]
• The Times of Israel features a Clash report tweet speaking of a "genocidal song". [48]
• The Week (Indian magazine) says, "Meanwhile, unverified videos doing rounds on social media claimed Israelis allegedly chanting anti-Arabs slurs and genocidal songs about dead children in Gaza, even before the attacks began." [49]
• The Jerusalem Post reports that a French MP said Israelis "took up genocidal and pro-Netanyahu chants." [50]
• Anadolu Ajansı (state-run Turkish agency) quotes an Erev Rav member saying fans "sang racist and genocidal songs on public transportation". [51]

Make of that what you will --- personally, I think it's not enough to put it in wiki voice, but enough to mention somewhere, with attribution. Andreas JN466 20:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

personally, I think it's not enough to put it in wiki voice

Agree. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism today

Riots broke out this evening (Monday) in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. According to reports, a large group of rioters set fire to a tram station and set off fireworks. In a video published on social networks, a Palestinian flag can be seen placed near one of the centers of friction. https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/global/823433/ https://nltimes.nl/2024/11/11/unrest-amsterdam-time-nieuw-west-tram-catches-fire 2.55.165.229 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Another source -- https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828672 DNL (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I read about that but according to the Police in Netherlands at this stage it is not clear any connection with the events discussed in this page. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024: New incidents on night of 8 November and of 9 November wherby people where requested passport on the street

Could someone please include that fact that an Amsterdam police chief reported that on the night of Saturday 9 November new incidents occured in which people that appeared Jewish were threatened on the street and requested to show their passport.

See: https://www.parool.nl/wereld/israelische-supporters-amsterdam-aangevallen~ba8fedc0/ (live update from 12:42)

And: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/301550981/demonstraties-in-amsterdam-ook-door-rechter-verboden-pro-palestijnse-protest-mag-niet-doorgaan-op-de-dam

See also: https://nos.nl/liveblog/2543687-politie-veegt-dam-leeg-tientallen-pro-palestijnse-demonstranten-opgepakt (update from 13:35)

More specifically, the account of facts - as drawn up by the Amsterdam mayor, the Amsterdam Chief of Police and the Amsterdam Attorney General - states that:

-On the night of Friday 8 November, a person was insulted in an antisemitic manner by a cab driver. That same night, a man was kicked out of a cab because he was Jewish. The national gendarmery was spit at while safeguarding a Jewish object, the subject was arrested.

-On the night of Saturday 9 November, someone on a scooter asks a man to show his passport and asks if he is Israeli. A cab driver asks a passenger if he is Israeli, and tells him that his friends will bring him a visit, that his friends will look for him.

https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/229482/driehoek-overwoog-wedstrijd-ajax-maccabi-te-verbieden-vanwege-geweldsincidenten WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Redundant Sentences in the Lead

The lead is currently redundant with two nearly identical sentences with identical sources. I propose cutting the first sentence as follows:

"Prior to the attacks, some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had engaged in acts of vandalism and violence in the city. ...Some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had been filmed pulling Palestinian flags from houses, making anti-Arab chants such as "Death to Arabs", assaulting people, and vandalising local property."

DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the same as saying that "some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted in a series of attacks" is repeated in "Subsequently, Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were ambushed and assaulted in various locations across the city." One is an overview; the other gives more detail. I think if we remove this—as I note you and @BilledMammal have done in prior edits—we should re-word the first sentence. The issue is that, at present, it only tells half the story and is therefore WP:POV as a result. One way to address this is to remove the sentence as you suggest but join the first and second paragraphs, so the entire situation is outlined in the first paragraph and not pushed further down the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority of the story is the attacks of Maccabi supporters; sources typically give only a small amount of coverage, at the end of their articles, to the prior behavior of the supporters. As such, it is appropriate - and required by NPOV - that we give their behavior less emphasis than the attacks on them. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed Andre🚐 23:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

November 8-11

Many sources appear to describe the attacks on November 11th as a continuation of the ongoing unrest, not the "aftermath".[52][53] Likewise, WikipediaNummer1 describes continuing violence. We should consider moving some of the content reflecting the violence on November 11th from "aftermath" to the "events" section. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. Additionally there is talk that there will be even more violence and attacks.

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands-tensions-tram-israeli-fans-20c8af43b8a72fa6bd9bab938ce7bd89

This makes me think that whatever the Israeli fans did on November 6-7 is a handy misdirect to mitigate the actions of those who attacked them and somehow make it justified.

Because if the attacks continue and there is no football match or football fans around, it shows its not connected to the actions of the Israeli fans.

This reminds me of the Second Intifada when at the time it was claimed that it started due to Ariel Sharon visiting the Temple Mount. Only later was it admitted that it had been in the works for months... MaskedSinger (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Condensing the "reactions" section to remove unduly weighted commentary

The amount of text being devoted to "reactions" is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Although immediate reactions are interesting in the short term, they will hardly be relevant to future readers.

My general recommendation: Keep reactions from relevant government representitives only.

Reactions for removal:

(a) Erev Rav
Erev Rav is a small and obscure organization, and while "World Against Racism and fascism" is bigger, they are not nearly important enough nor relevant to the content of this article to warrant their opinion being included.
(b) Gideon Levy
He is a somewhat known opinion columnist. However, his reaction to this situation is irrelevant. His only connection to the events it that he is, himself, Israeli.
(c) The Forward
At the time of writing we have 107 sources informing the content of this page. The Forward interviewed some unnamed Jewish people in Amsterdam and we've assigned one-off opinions to a supposed "many." The only relevance is that the people interviewed were Jews living in Amsterdam, however this is not a significant enough polling to be portrayed as a voice for those people.
(d) The Palestinian Football Association
Neither the Israeli Football Association nor the Palestinian Football Association's opinions or reactions to the situation should be included as neither have any involvement in this situation, nor represent any relevant groups of people. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Completely disagree. Restricting to government "representitives" would mean ignoring civil society. Andreas JN466 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposed reactions from members of civil society or not well known nor particularly relevant. Dazzling4 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dazzling4 many editors agreed that these responses of the civil society are relevant. Both "Gideon Levy" and "World Against Racism and fascism" are considered "notable" in Wikipedia. If you think that part of civil society is misrepresent you can suggest another one, but please don't impose a removal based on your preference. I kindly remember you that a lot of responses were already removed. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

See my response to your comment. Just because many were removed does not mean we should not remove more. Also, being notable on Wikipedia is not the only justification to keep this content. Dazzling4 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(a) "Erev Rav is a small and obscure organization" this is a very strange statement, and mark "World Against Racism and fascism" as irrelevant when it is an international NGO with a important presence in Netherlands is also strange. But the most important thing, these two NGO were those coordinating the Amsterdam commemoration of the Kristallnacht in memory of the Jewish victims. Kristallnacht was linked to these events by Israel Prime Minister and Amsterdam mayor Femke Halsema. The cancellation of the commemoration of the Kristallnacht has been reported in many media in Netherlands as an important consequence of the discussed events.

(b) Gideon Levy has been already extensively discussed here and many editors agreed in kept it, together with other voices of Jewish/Israel community. Feel free to suggest any other.

(c) Interviews of local people including Jewish seems quite reasonable given the content of the article.

(d) Still we are including a lot of Israel/Jewish/Europe response. I guess that keep this response of a Palestinians Association is reasonable at this stage.

As others say, it is important to maintain civil society. Also @Dazzling4] I remind you that we have already deleted many responses/reactions: Government ‘representatives’ from all other European countries have been removed. All comments from Muslim journalists have been deleted. Comments from former ministers like Yanis Varufakis (who has a strong media relevance) have also been removed. Reactions from academics in the field of social conflicts and antisemitism/antiarabism has been removed or discarded. The current response is fine in terms of length and relevance. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(a) Can you provide evidence of Erev Rav being to the contrary of "small and obscure"? They would not even warrant having a wikipedia page. Their content is entirely distributed through Instagram and Twitter with a one paragraph 'about' section [54]. Additionally, if the cancellation of the Kristallnacht commemoration event is indeed an important aspect of these events reported on by major news outlets (which I have not seen to be the case) then that should be the core of this reaction. I.e., "A commemoration event for the Kristallnacht was canceled..."

(b) I'm challenging the idea that just any opinion columnists words should be included here. Consider: would readers in 5 years care about what this uninvolved man has to say about the event? What does this inform them about the event?

(c) Indeed it would be the case, however the statement made about the Forward article does not correlate to any information in the article. It seems to have been mistakenly gathered from the headline. The person named "Jelle Zijlstra" who this article quotes is certainly not relevant enough to be included here. As written:

"He has been frustrated by an insistence on the left that violence against the Israelis was justified — and by politicians like Wilders who are stripping the attacks of context to push an agenda that most of the country’s Jews don’t support."

Was turned into "reported that many in the Netherlands' small Jewish community said the incident was being weaponized and stripped of context." This is editorializing at worst, and violates WP:HEADLINES at best.

Beyond this, the opinion of one person interviewed in some one-off article is certainly not worth 4 lines of text.

(d) The Palestinian Football Association can't possibly be relevant here, can it? They are literally a sports organization. I'd argue that even Maccabi Tel Aviv's official club statement wouldn't be warranted here. Dazzling4 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

- The adjective ‘obscure’ is odd and it seems that you are trying to brand this NGO as ‘obscure/evil’. As I have already explained our research indicates that these two NGOs were the ones who coordinated the Amsterdam commemoration of Kristallnacht in memory of the Jewish victims and Kristallnacht was linked to these events by the Prime Minister of Israel and the Mayor of Amsterdam Femke Halsema. In my view, their assessment is pertinent and relevant.

- I think Gideon Levy will still be relevant in 5-10 years, if not he will probably be edited later. Let's hope Wikipedia survives for another 10 years. Personally I don't agree with all of Gideon Levy's assessments here, but this text has the support of several editors, and I agree that he is a well-known voice in Israel and in the Western media. Maybe the text citation can be improved. Anyway in which sense Caspar Veldkamp will be relevant in 5 years? What about Dilan Yeşilgöz? Is it so relevant the opinion of the Israel Embassy? You did not claim to delete any of these.

- As for ‘Forward’ I already gave my opinion, although on this point I understand your concerns and it can be evaluated. Let's see the opinion of other editors. Let's wait.

- As for ‘Palestinian Football Association’, I have given my opinion, for the moment I would leave it and we will see in time more Palestinian/Lebanese reactions. Let's see the opinion of other editors. Let's wait.

- You want to remove and remove, what about this statement "The airline was given permission to fly on Shabbat, Judaism's day of rest, by Israel's Chief Rabbinate, based on the principle of pikuach nefesh." I don't see why this is so relevant, but I can understand that for you and others editors this can be relevant, and I respect that.

- As I already explained we already deleted many many reactions, and I don't see the urgency on delete more now. AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, particularly about Erev Rav. No other Amsterdam Jewish organizations are reflected her, and Erev Rav is not representative of the vast majority of Jews. DNL (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024: NRC showed today that info cited from RTL article was incorrect

The article contains the following sentence under the Events of 6 November:

“Another showed a group of people kicking a man on the ground, reportedly a taxi driver.”

It turns out that the cited RTL article claiming that a video (of which they included an image still) showed that Maccabi supporters assault a taxi driver is wrong. NRC writes today that the assaulted men in the video speak Hebrew, and that the assaulters arrived and left in taxis.

Could someone please change the sentence so that it accurately describes the incident in the video, and include the NRC source below?

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2024/11/12/al-in-de-nacht-voor-de-voetbalwedstrijd-vielen-mannen-uit-taxi-israeliers-aan-a4872836 WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a fringe claim. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, NRC (newspaper) is a quality newspaper. I've edited the passage. Fair dos. Andreas JN466 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not their video, so it's just a claim like any other. It's not like other so-called "quality newspapers" didn't misrepresented other videos. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Owen Jones is definitely WP:FRINGE and not an RS. Nevermind is he so reliable he can prove all RSes not reliable. --Scharb (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, it's repeated here too, in case someone feels like questioning the reliability of what is being said in that video. The photographer also spoke to RTL. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The exact identity of the men in the video remains unclear. A spokeswoman for the Amsterdam police said in an interview with DW that the video taken by the Dutch photographer is the subject of an ongoing investigation. At present, the police cannot provide any information about the identity of the perpetrators seen in the video.

DW corroborates the claim by the photographer, who complained on social media, based on an alternate angle video that now has been deleted without archive. The photographer has no more insight into what the video shows than anyone else watching the video. A claim based on a social media claim and a deleted video is not RS. Scharb (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Fake news

The misrepresentation of a video that was shared by a Dutch photographer (Annet De Graaf) needs to be mentioned.

a video by Dutch photographer Annet De Graaf was used several times to show the acts of violence committed by Israeli fans. However, it was misrepresented by many major media outlets in their reporting... German media outlets such as the German broadcaster Tagesschau, the newspapers FAZ and Bild, and international media like the The Wall Street Journal, Channel 4, and BBC showed either parts of this video or screenshots.

There are other reliable sources that can also be used to highlight the disinformation. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References