Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No mention of antisemitism in the lead

We currently (following this edit by User:Pdhadam) have no mention of "antisemitism" in the lead. I don't think that is tenable, given the number of people that have used the term in connection to this incident (we have over thirty mentions of antisemitism/antisemitic in the body of the article). I wouldn't use it in wikivoice, but I think a mention is due. Thoughts? Andreas JN466 16:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it is worth mentioning. The aftermath and response sections are a big part of the article but currently not summarised at all in the lead. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well; that revised sentence was not the best summary of responses covered in the body. I restored those two sentences. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This was now reverted, seemingly against consensus. @Mason7512: sources are not required in the lede when they're already in the body. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have undone my revert. Although I wouldn't call two people agreeing a consensus for an article this large and actives, I'll admit that I did not see this conversation (I try to check the talk page in these types of situations, but this one is extremely crowded/active and I missed this). Mason7512 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This

"The attacks on Israeli fans were widely condemned as criminal and antisemitic. The behaviour of Israeli fans was criticized as well." (condemned vs criticized is definitely not neutral)

reads much less neutral then this

"Both the attacks on and the behaviour of the Israeli fans during and after the match were criticised by various parties."

We can mention antisemitism in the lead while still following WP:NPOV. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's neutral at all. It suggests a false equivalence between hooliganism and a large-scale coordinated violent attack. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The scale of coordination is still unknown. Both parties have been condemned for violence & racism, so it'd be incorrect to simply excuse Maccabi fans' actions as only being criticized for hooliganism & bad-behavior.

"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) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Tearing down a flag just isn't comparable to a network of coordinated assailants committing assaults across the city. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

They did a lot more than tear down some flags: their chants about the Arabs and the children of Gaza (the root cause of the riots) cannot be whitewashed. The bottom line, they looked for trouble and, lo and behold, they found it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that at least 2 Maccabi fans were also arrested for assault. It was not limited to chants and vandalism. Mason7512 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You've read this article so I'm not sure why you're acting like that's all that happened.

"On images in possession of Het Parool from that evening and night, Maccabi supporters can be seen walking through the city centre with belts in their hands. One youth is tackled to the ground by them, another is beaten up."

"“I have a pro-Palestinian poster in my window, neighbors have Palestinian flags,” she says. “When I opened my curtain to look, the screams got louder. They started kicking my door. I was really scared, I was home alone and because I was looking out of the window, they knew I was home.”"

"Videos show them throwing stones at the windows, climbing the building and tearing off the flags.

“They were kicking our doors and trying to get into our house,” said a 23-year-old resident of the building. “They were giving us the middle finger and making beheading gestures, saying ‘ we’re going to kill you and we will come back’ .”"

"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)

You're treating as a fact that "a network of coordinated assailants" was responsible for everything & have continuously dismissed any potential nuance. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just responding to the incident you brought up. Of course there are other accusations, but only one side caused dozens of injuries and five hospitalizations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't know that "one side" is responsible for that.

Five individuals were hospitalised and released on Friday, Amsterdam police confirmed, although they provided no further information about whether the injured were Dutch or Israeli.

An additional 20 to 30 people suffered minor injuries. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said 10 Israelis were injured.

If Israel says 10 were injured, that leaves 10-20 people. I wouldn't use that to definitively say who the injured are, but it definitely shows that we still don't know the full details of who was arrested, who was injured, & who was hospitalized.

The only injuries I can find any details of is a Maccabi fan reporting a rock being thrown at their head & the reports I posted above of Maccabi fans assaulting people (A youth tackled, another beaten, & a driver being kicked), but that's it. It was obviously not just one side & I'm not sure why you insist that it is. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There are probably just some different definitions of "injured" involved, as well as timing differences. This says at least 25 Israelis injured. Certainly some non-Israelis were injured, such as the British man who helped a Jew, and probably some non-Israeli Jews, but no RS are claiming that non-Israeli injuries were caused by Maccabi fans. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you... not read what I wrote?

"One youth is tackled to the ground by them, another is beaten up."

"A taxi driver was also assaulted"

"There are also images circulating showing hooligans beating a taxi with an iron chain and kicking a driver."

The claim that "no RS are claiming that non-Israeli injuries were caused by Maccabi fans" is objectively wrong. If you can read what I quoted & still say Maccabi fans didn't injure anyone, then I don't think there's any point in discussing this further with you. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is a term full of connotations and can be misunderstood. It may be that there was anti-Semitism in what happened in Amsterdam (it may also be a reaction to a war in Palestine and Lebanon and not so much to race or religion but to countries at war), which worries us all, but it would also be legitimate to say that there was anti-Arabism, which also worries us. And we would have to justify why use one and not the other. What the media say should be quoted as what the media say, not as a fact that would need a deep analysis. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There may have been Islamophobia, and I'm not necessarily against mentioning that in the lede if suitable sources can be found (as long as we don't end up with the bulk of the lede being victim-blaming).

But the behavior mentioned was not at all comparable to the large-scale violent attack that followed. Lumping the two together and saying "both were criticized" implies a false equivalence. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably you are right. I only gave a small feedback and I don't feel myself enough informed yet about what it truly happened. I would like to know better all the facts as there is a lot of noise at this moment. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We have to get away from what we feel about events, and our estimation of which side is more blameworthy.

The fact is that the attacks against the Israeli fans were more sharply condemned, including by a whole range of Western politicians, than the attacks launched by the Israeli fans. That may be unbalanced, but even if so – that imbalance is itself an integral part of the story. Andreas JN466 21:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement? I'm arguing against a framing that would suggest criticism against the two groups was comparable. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorta of two minds here, because the following two things both appear to be true:

1. Many sources describe the attacks as anti-semitic.
2. Other more detailed sources describe the Maccabi team being obnoxious and violent before the attacks in ways that very much seem like they provoked the attack.

Or in other words, we're deep in when sources are wrong territory here. Provisionally, since we're uncertain (and it does appear we're very uncertain) I'd like to ideally say as little as possible. It's better to not say anything than to say something false. Loki (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah saying nothing is generally a safe option... no objection to having the lede stick to the events themselves without getting into reactions/criticism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

"instances of Jews being thrown into a canal" in the lede is referenced to Reuters, which neither mentions Jews nor canal.[1] What is this sourced to? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No, instances of Jews being run over with vehicles is referenced to Reuters. Techiya1925 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article below it cites the canal events. Techiya1925 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That JP reference which was added after I opened this discussion reports: "Multiple videos showed Israelis jumping into canals to avoid the protesters." Where does it say being thrown into a canal? Where does it say Jews? Why are we conflating Jews with Israelis? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Also you just added an inline citation that does not support the material: the Reuters article you just added neither mentions "canal" nor "stabbings"; and the run over is attributed to Israeli embassy. Please reflect sources accurately. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Bejakyo: [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify sorry? I've attributed the statement to the Israeli embassy, and seperated the two sources into seperate sentences to avoid misatribution Bejakyo (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between "being thrown into a canal" and "jumping into canals". I pinged you since you added the JP attribution, which was good. [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you for the clarification. I'll sort that now Bejakyo (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

While you do, please ensure avoiding violating 1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bejakyo This still needs to be fixed right? I am also not sure whether the canal thing took place on Thursday night, given that the most documented case was the day before. JP isn't very clear. Dajasj (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What still needs to be fixed sorry? Bejakyo (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We could cite Reuters which says (purportedly) "pushed in". Some other sources say "chased in" or similar. Maybe a Dutch speaker can find better sources. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I speak Dutch and have added the Dutch sources in the body iirc, that's why I have added "chased" in the body. This could both mean thrown in or jumped, imo. The problem is I want to avoid 1RR violations, so I am hesitant to change it myself Dajasj (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's relating to a single incident, do we have a source on a pattern? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Structure of “Response” section

I think the structure would be better if it was organized by dividing between responses that called this a pogrom (the pro-Israel side) and responses that said this was agitated by the Israeli footballers. Hovsepig (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The response section is hard to read. I think it would be better if it was organized by groups who defended the Israeli footballers vs criticized them. Hovsepig (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are some people in that section who deplore violence on both sides ... which to me seems a sane reaction. Andreas JN466 21:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, we generally try to avoid separating things into positive and negative responses, since that can distort the article and lead to POV issues. Lewisguile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Responses sections

Agreeing with the various concerns expressed here on the talk page regarding the length of the responses section, I have added a too long tag on it. It clearly needs condensing and trimming, as it currently takes more space than the actual violence, and features too many undue figures and statements. Sure, reactions in the Netherlands, Israel and Palestine can be given some weight, but the rest not so much.

To cite some actions that can be performed:

1- Removing statements by the German ambassador to Israel and the former finance minister of Greece who are both irrelevant.

2- Summarizing the statements by the heads of governments.

3- Removing almost all of the opinions stated by the Jewish and Muslim groups which are undue. There are thousands of organizations in the world and hundreds of articles have been written about this incident so far, and we can't be expected to reflect all of them, and certainly not to pick and choose from them based on personal preferences.

Makeandtoss (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this Dajasj (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now trimmed this section considerably. I removed most of the "other" content, but moved some of it to the relevant subsections (e.g., The Forward article interviews Jews in Amsterdam, so that went under Netherlands). Check it out and see what you think? Lewisguile (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned, this seems picked over other content. Why not interviews with Amsterdam residents for example? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for those to go back in, too. Do you want to do that or should I? Lewisguile (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is debated in other sections, so according to the talk-guidelines please try to discuss where this has been mentioned. A lot of people work in adding sections and statement here, what you are doing is ignoring all the contributions and discussion already done. If you think it is really necessary to add a new section to discuss this please mention also the previous debate and inform to the person that contributed to that. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The new section is for the tag. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you asked for:

(1) Removing the statements of the German ambassador to Israel and the former finance minister of Greece which are both irrelevant.

(2) Removing almost all the views put forward by Jewish and Muslim groups which are undue.

The relevance of them is being debated in other sections. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do you mean, @AyubuZimbale? I can see a consensus to keep the Gideon Levy column here, which I hadn't spotted because of the number of threads. I'm happy to put that back in. There's also apparent consensus here that the section is too long. Is there anywhere else?

In this thread you said you were happy for the journalists' comments to be removed, for example. In this thread no one has responded but you. This thread didn't go anywhere.

Makeandtoss also asked for Amsterdam residents' comments to go back in.

So is it just Levy and the Amsterdam residents which need to go back in? If so, I'm happy to reinstate those. Lewisguile (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there consensus about removing the statements of the German ambassador to Israel and the former finance minister of Greece? Is there any agreement that are both irrelevant? There is also an open issue about "YWN calling for an international boycott" which to my eyes is dubious. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agreed with the comments that the German and Greek figures weren't really relevant, but I think there's a stronger case for the German ambassador to Israel than there is for the Greek finance minister. I've added the German comment in under "Israel". I agree YWN isn't relevant, but if you want to re-add the Uber info, I won't mind. If we remove the YWN bit, it seems like it would fit elsewhere, rather than the "Responses" section, though?

I tried to make a clean cut by removing anything that wasn't in the Israel, Palestine and Netherlands sections, but as I've gone over that edit, I now realise I missed a few more quotes that were relevant and which were grouped with other comments/in other subsections. That was entirely my fault, and was again unintentional. I think I've found the ones that seem relevant—as mentioned by you and @Makeandtoss—and have restored them. Is there anything else I missed?

TBH, I had mainly tried to fix the lede. The "Responses" section I just did as an afterthought, because it seemed like a quick fix that would be easy to revert if problematic. That said, I am happy to revert the "Responses" section if you still don't think it's right, but until then, I've tried to combine the older important material with the trimmed version I did. Hopefully, not having an "Other" section will avoid people adding every comment they come across (resulting in the situation we previously had). Lewisguile (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You have removed a lot of things. What about the reaction of the NGO of Jewish in Netherlands and "Stop Racism" in Netherlands. They were the organizers of the commemoration of the Kristallnacht, and they cancelled because of these incidents. Why remove that? What about the other Jewish journalist mentioned why remove it if several editors what to have it here? Why remove the media reaction in which other editors were working? AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the removal expect for the commemoration of the Kristallnacht (because it is directly relevant, because it was discussed earlier in the article). Dajasj (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've re-added some stuff. Is the balance closer now? @Dajasj, do you think I've added too much back in or can you live with it as it is now? Lewisguile (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it is fine, as also you kept the relevant external sources about it. Also it fits well in the Netherlands section (I guess). Let's see if @Dajasj agrees. AyubuZimbale (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Netherlands seemed the best fit for it, I think. I was just hesitant to add an "Other" category back in, as that's basically an open invitation. We could also consider moving anything which doesn't neatly fit the three subheaders under "Responses" to the "Events" or "Aftermath" sections? Lewisguile (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mairav Zonszein

@Vice regent: I removed Mairav Zonszein's quote from the article[4] and you restored it.[5] I don't believe that quote should be in the article at all.

First of all, Mairav Zonszein isn't confirmed to be Jewish by the source. The source says (translated to English): Mairav Zonszein, an analyst at the Crisis Group, an independent NGO, called it "absurd" to compare the violence in Amsterdam to pogroms. While Crisis Group describes her as being Israeli,[6] that's not evidence of her being Jewish.

Second of all, even if Zonszein is Jewish, it's WP:UNDUE to include her quote. The section is for major Jewish groups that purport to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. Zonszein, at best, is just a random journalist that happens to be Jewish. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The opinion is not relevant and should be excluded. Andre🚐 00:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this opinion is not relevant, as it is a member of an important Institution in Israel "Shalom Hartman Institute" which is Jewish research and education institute based in Jerusalem focused on strengthen Jewish peoplehood and identity. She regularly publish in newspapers like New York Times and Washington Post, but also she write in Israeli news papers actually she is co-founder of an Israeli newspaper. She also publishs regularly in the Jewish Magazine Jewish-Currents. In others words, she is a figure in the Jewish culture. AyubuZimbale (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Zonszein is being quoted in a Dutch newspaper of record. She is also someone who is regularly featured in the New York Times as a member of the International Crisis Group. See e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10]. She is a notable Jewish voice, and I think the inclusion is fair enough. Andreas JN466 09:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Zonszein is member of Shalom Hartman Institute which aims is "Our mission is to strengthen Jewish peoplehood, identity, and pluralism". Therefore there is no reason remove it. Also she is a senior analyst living in Israel working in International Crisis Group expert in the topic of this article, she also wrote in Hebrew. She is quoted in Dutch news papers (independent source). AyubuZimbale (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I note that there is a mention to "The Foward" an American news organization, so I don't see why Mairav Zonszein has no place here. AyubuZimbale (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that only major Jewish organizations speak for the Jewish community (although they should certainly be given more weight). We can rephrase the content to ensure Zonszein's opinions are mentioned more concisely. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The current placement[11] treats her as a generic Israeli commentator, which is something I'm OK with. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Should Hamas response be moved under 'Palestine'?

As hamas' political wing is the government of Gaza, and one of the two Palestinian governments, wouldn't their response better fit under Response>Palestine (subsubsectioned into PA and Hamas, possibly) instead of its current location under Response>Muslim groups and figures? This probably depends on the role of the person who said this (militant wing vs. political body), which is hard to tell based on the content and their wiki page. Thoughts? Mason7512 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lewisguile (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

False reporting and from Reliable sources

Since this is a hot topic at the moment and there's a lot of noise right now I wanted to highlight a piece of misinformation on this topic which a lot of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources have reported.

Here's an article from the NLtimes talking to the photographer who took one of the primary videos being used by major news sources, the video she took involves Maccabi fans assaulting locals and many sources (BILD, CNN, BBCWorld, Guardian, nytimes, TimesofIsrael) have described the footage as locals attacking people instead. Just to keep in mind for the topic. Galdrack (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Small group

Hi @Kire1975, what is inaccurate? The source says: "The stadium remains neatly quiet, except for a small part of the away section, which is twice as large as usual.". Perhaps in the article, it could be changed to "small part" instead of "small group", but now it suggests a majority did it, which was not the case. Dajasj (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I also see you're trimming references, but right now it is suggested that the RTL article covers both wednesday and thursday messages on social media, but that is not the case. So next up, someone will say "it is not in the source directly after the sentence, so I removed it". Dajasj (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

And now you're adding the template "excessive citations". But all those statements have been controversial, that's why they required more sources. Dajasj (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide links to to the offending edits you are referring to? Your complaints are difficult to comprehend. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

See here. Dajasj (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you justify reusing three inline citations to the same article in one two sentence paragraph? Kire1975 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because other references are used in between. So it gets confusing what reference backs up what sentence. Dajasj (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"a group" does not suggest a majority. Kire1975 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Would "a small part" be okay with you, as suggested by the source? Dajasj (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The source is a paywalled article in Dutch. When I use 12 ft ladder, the only thing that comes up is a copyright notice. It's a controversial edit. You'll need to provide at least two sources that are not paywalled. Kire1975 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are non-paywalled sources required? Archive.ph is a solution here btw Dajasj (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Too much detail about Israel-Palestine conflict

@Supreme_Deliciousness, I don't see why we should discuss the war in-depth. This is all very controversial and is better discussed on other pages. It is all not very relevant to the events last week. It does not make it more neutral at all. Dajasj (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree. This is way too much information and way too many citations. We can simply link to existing articles on the war and on protests against it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently there is only one paragraph on the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict, it seems to be OK. It gives information about the situation when this happened. Other pages may update figures and data, here we can keep the background information as it is when this happened, and not modify the figures that other pages are going to modify. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with TS, the problem is that when I attempted to shorten and make that section more neutral someone reverted me:[12] , so the only option to make the section neutral was to ad the missing information. How it was before was not neutral in any way and a misrepresentation of the conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It will never be a neutral representation. From both sides, people will always want to add facts. That's why I prefer the limited version, although it misses the complete background. This article is not focussed on the war, but attacks as a result of tensions caused by the war. That is clear enough with the short description. Dajasj (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggested simplification:

"After the onset of the Israel-Hamas war on 8 October 2023, a number of protests related to the war have taken place in the Netherlands."

Then we don't need to get into any debates about which facts to include/exclude—people can just click on the links to read more. Lewisguile (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Even better! Dajasj (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley @Supreme Deliciousness What do you think of my simplified wording? Lewisguile (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

its alright, I support any version that doesn't claim the conflict began on October 7 and everything was rainbows and ice cream before that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I might have jumped the gun. I added a main article hatnote to the section and then trimmed the opening para. My trim is less severe than Lewisguile proposes, but might not meet Supreme Deliciousness criteria of starting before October 2023. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

BobFromBrockleyk, you are presenting people that are defending themselves as aggressors. As if they started the war out of thin air. No mention of what Israel did to the Palestinians. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Supreme_Deliciousness, does this meet your POV concerns? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(I oppose going too far back in this article. Nothing happens out of thin air, and there's always a preceding story before every preceding story, so people can look at the main article to see more detail. We have to start somewhere, and October 2023 is a clear cut off moment.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see your latest comment, Bob, and I've just implemented my wording as outlined upthread. I'll hang fire until @Supreme Deliciousness comments. I'm happy with either wording, though I tend to think that saying less is usually better in this instance. Lewisguile (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems someone had already tweaked your wording before I got to it, Bob. Lewisguile (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that we need to keep the numbers already included about Gaza and Lebanon. In other pages these numbers will be updated, but here we indicating the background when this happened. We don't need to say too much but a paragraph is needed in my opinion. It is informative but it is not disruptive for the reader. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that people can't agree what to put in. Every attempt to expand that part of the article winds up causing more disagreement. Better to keep it simple, I think. There are other pages to cover those topics. Lewisguile (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@3skandar, please revert yourself, your edit is restoring a non neutral introduction that is missing what Israel did to Palestinians. See discussion above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 11 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 [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

(Grammar) Please change "spit" to "spat" in the lede sentence: "The attacks also included instances of individuals being thrown into a canal, shot with fireworks, physically assaulted, and spit on." ElderOfZion (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 13 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)

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)

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)

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[24], 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[25] 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)

November 8-11

Many sources appear to describe the attacks on November 11th as a continuation of the ongoing unrest, not the "aftermath".[26][27] 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)

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)