Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam riots/Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

Add the category Category:Jews and Judaism in Amsterdam 94.252.74.157 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pogram?

The lede says "...that some described as a pogram." Should it not be "pogrom"?31.221.247.79 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

The table on the side is fake: you compare "Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C.'s fans" and "AFC Ajax's fans and locals". But the attackers were nor AFC Ajax's fans, neither locals. They are Muslim immigrants taking a refuge in Holland. Also " 6 injured" is underestimation. 2A06:C701:70A6:E200:248A:9FE3:1593:C0AE (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024 (3)

I suggest wipining the "Israeli football fans yelled anti-Arab slurs,[2] pulling down Palestinian flags while assaulting structures and homes" because it didn't happen. The only resource stating it is the Wikipedia one, other resources state the attack was of antisemitic nature, not because the Israelis ripped Palestinian flags or anything.the writing of this page is pure misinformation and should be wiped from Wikipedia immediately. 2A06:C701:433F:E600:9B2:F1C0:2533:8066 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: that sentence is currently sourced by the Times of Israel, a reliable source. Wikishovel (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: There is already another article about this, Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam.

GrabUp - Talk 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I responded on my User page to your comment. I also started a Talk page on the Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam article to initiate a discussion about what to do about it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA

@Nythar: Should WP:ARBPIA apply here? GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp: It very likely does because the attacks are directly related to the current war and involve Israelis and pro-Palestinians. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Requesting to protect: Daniel Case, Liz. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 06:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Also other title in the same incident: Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam. GrabUp - Talk 06:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Are antisemitic attacks ones whose pages are protected? The New York Times writes: "Israeli and Dutch officials described [the attacks] as antisemitic attacks." And that "Prime Minister Dick Schoof of the Netherlands ... said in a statement early Friday that there had been antisemitic attacks on Israelis in Amsterdam, calling them “completely unacceptable.”"[1]

If the answer is yes, at least can someone put those quotes in the article? Thanks.--184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The statement about the authorities has been added to the lede. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Small change in the background section.

In the background section it currently reads “ The Maccabi Tel Aviv vs. Ajax match”. In european football the home team is mentioned before the away team, the current text therefore indicates that the match was played in Tel Aviv.

” The Ajax vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv match” would be the correct wording. Jjoonnii (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jjoonnii, thanks for spotting that! Will be changed shortly. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Who did what?

The Maccabi fans attacked people, fought with police, and set off fireworks yet the article says they're the victims? What is going on here. LamontCranston (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@LamontCranston: Please cite reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FOVHJx4HSpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPsIV3ZS6f4 LamontCranston (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: change to neutral language

in the leading paragraph change :

but this was later denied

to:

The Israeli government has walked back on sending an IDF rescue mission to the Netherlands

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israeli-government-walks-back-plan-to-send-idf-rescue-mission-to-the-netherlands/ 109.64.104.168 (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pogrom

Pogrom label does not belong in opening paragraph, as much as it does not belong at the opening paragraph of Huwara rampage. Also why were all the paragraphs recombined to one? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents

The description of "Amsterdam locals" in the infobox is a bit too vague and generic. Does someone have something more on point it can be changed to? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2024 antisemitic riots in Amsterdam into November 2024 Amsterdam riot

Two articles, one topic. Wikishovel (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth embedding a video of the violence in the article?

Reuters have confirmed footage showing Israelis being beaten up by rioters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyge1587e5t?post=asset%3A714a11c4-6387-40f5-9b6c-483a712424ba#post now that there is a credible news source using footage rather than just social media, should we include it in the article? שי - LionFireKing404 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the video footage add any information to the article that isn't better conveyed as text? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

in a similar vein as to how in the pager explosions article there is a video to better illustrate the text, there should be a video here too for context שי - LionFireKing404 10:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The video in the pager explosions article is from CCTV so can be used much more easily as it doesn't require compliance with WP:NFCC. The video you're referring to seems to come from X and seems to have been recorded by a person and there's no indication it is available under a free licence. Therefore it can only be used if it complies with NFCC which is quite difficult for a case like this unless it's particularly iconic. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Hakim Ziyech's response

under the "reactions" section, you could mention Notable People, former Ajax player and current Galatasaray player Ziyech posted on his instagram story, with footballer Eran Zahavi responding - see article - Zeish mocks Maccabi Tel Aviv fans: "When it's not women and children, they run away" שי - LionFireKing404 14:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Move made without consensus

The Move of the article—from November 2024 Amsterdam attacks to November 2024 Amsterdam attack—made by User:Qhairun in this edit (diff), was made without prior consensus, and should be reversed until discussion is had and consensus is formed. Nearly all the sources used in the early editing of this article showed that multiple attacks occurred, in various parts of the city of Amsterdam, and thus the earlier article title with the plural "attacks" is quite appropriate; but changes should be done by consensus.

PROPOSAL: Move the article back to its original name November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. Move will need to be made by an administrator with privileges to do the switch over a name that is currently a redirect to this article. N2e (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Qhairun changed it from "attacks" to "riots", and @BilledMammal changed it back to "attack" here [2]. I think they probably just made a typo.

Support it being returned to November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both commenters on the proposal, and to the OM (OrigMover?) for changing the article back to the original name so quickly! Sometimes Wikipedia can do these things quite well and expeditiously. Would be okay to just archive this Talk page section now. N2e (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8 § Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Islamophobia in Infobox

Thesource for this doesn’t support the claim - it’s also probably given too much weight, given this allegation is a very minor aspect compared to the allegations of antisemitism. BilledMammal (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Per that article and many others, the Maccabi fans were doing "Anti-Arab" chants, seems pretty cut and dry to me as well as a significant aspect of why it happened. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably Anti-Arab racism, not Islamophobia, then. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be closer, but to avoid WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues we would need a source saying it is that - we can’t determine that ourselves. BilledMammal (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

How could "Anti-Arab" chants not be "Anti-Arab racism"? (Sincerely asking!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good question. It would seem that anti-Arab chants are definitely anti-Arab racism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, to include a statement we need a source that explicitly supports the statement. That means that source would support us stating that anti-Arab chants occurred, but not that anti-Arab racism did, because that requires interpretation.

While the interpretation is reasonable, it is still forbidden, unless we can find a source supporting. Also, I still think we are giving it too much emphasis - it probably shouldn’t be in the infobox, and definitely shouldn’t be the first listed, given the lack of coverage of it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying that anti-Arab chants can possibly not be racist?!??!? That seems like something of a stretch. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m saying that per policy we need a source explicitly saying "anti-Arab racism". Do we have any such source? BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:OR says. It would be one thing if RS mentioned 'chants' by the fans of the team and we SYNTH'd it into "Anti-Arab racism". But RS repeatedly mention 'Anti-Arab chants', and so unless you think there is some way that is not explicitly saying that these were Anti-Arab chants, I don't understand the complaint. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

But just for you I've gone out and found a source! Content warning...

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”.

(https://www.newarab.com/news/israeli-hooligans-cry-foul-after-instigating-riots-amsterdam) Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

a. Okay, here's a British state media outlet saying the same and an American state media outlet, plus plenty more.

b. Please explain to me in detail how "anti-Arab slurs" are not "anti-Arab racism"? Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have that for this being "caused by" antisemitism, and being "part of" antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war? I'm genuinely asking. I don't doubt that there could be sourcing for this, but I don't see it now. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"Per WP:OR, to include a statement we need a source that explicitly supports the statement."

This is not true it states: On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

In this instance reliable sources are showing that they engaged in Anti-Arab chants which are by definition racist, it is not OR to say summarise an event as being racist if it describes the behaviour (but not the individuals) as racist. EG: If a celeb was part of these riots using that as justification to call them racist on their wiki would be OR but to cite that they were present at this riot and that it was racist is not OR. Galdrack (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Template:Infobox military attack appears to be the wrong type of infobox; can we change it to something else? BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I would go with Template:Infobox civil conflict. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@EliasAntonakos See when I said Go to the talk page and attempt to generate consensus for this; it's not obvious that this was an attack on only one side; there's no RS for Amsterdam's National Monument; no RS for car ramming; "mob" is POV?

Do not unilaterally revert multiple times. Please undo your most recent edit and join the discussion. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Perpetrators: Fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv, Pro-Palestinian groups

Defenders: Fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv, Amsterdam residents, Pro-Palestine groups

Motive: Alleged Islamophobia, anti-semetic and anti-Zionist sentiment

@Smallangryplanet @WikiJunkie Trying to fit both of these in a one-tab infobox results in an abomination. This is clearly a clash between two groups. Can we use Template:Infobox civil conflict? Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes more sense, yes. I'll go ahead and make that change now. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed, good shout. Was trying to figure out which template would suit better, not sure how I missed civil conflict! Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiJunkie we've discussed this change here, please comment rather than unilaterally reverting this edit. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

add antisemitism to the "Motives" box

Many politicians and sources have cited that the attack was antisemitic as well as antizionist, it should be included in the "Motives" section שי - LionFireKing404 10:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to provide the relevant RS for this to be considered. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

BBC: Some Maccabi fans were "looking for a fight" according to witness

A witness reported seeing Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters on the Amsterdam metro "going up and down the carriages three or four times looking for a fight" according to the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwyge1587e5t). An experienced editor might want to add this info to the article. Wikimicky1 (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment removed per WP:ARBECR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli news outlet also confirms it. GrabUp - Talk 11:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What did the football hooligans actually say?

The description "Anti-Arab chanting" is a bit too vague. We all saw on social media them saying "let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs" which is also a part of the "there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left" song.

Adding these quotes will help with understanding why the anger boiled so quickly. MiddlePathMonk (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No source provided. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-soccer-fans-attacked-amsterdam-maccabi-tel-aviv-ajax-rcna179262

https://x.com/clashreport/status/1854765104467718531?t=nvIBZK9w220gOEEbNJfPMg&s=19

https://x.com/Currentreport1/status/1854719409840906686?t=7iVZeHi3dZ3ErxBKVhZVZQ&s=19

https://x.com/EsheruKwaku/status/1854792510733779252?t=WE-Tbudl5DuJWn98YuUMjA&s=19

https://x.com/DiEM_25/status/1854948366167195833?t=LYEGb4pcKefY_KELot51vQ&s=19

https://x.com/doamuslims/status/1854827346714304959?t=2SS8IXJMRQ75WbaLASYp1w&s=19 MiddlePathMonk (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@MiddlePathMonk the NBC source helps your case, but the rest fall under WP:RSPTWITTER - TL;DR, random tweets are not a reliable source. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done Was just going to say. Really bottom of the barrel "sources". Anyways, I added something from the NBC link. Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

Could you capitalize Riots in methods Jonathan Teagan (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Jonathan. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Number of people hurt in the attacks

The article now says "at least five." The NYT, updated a few minutes ago, says "The police in Amsterdam said in a statement on Friday that ... five people had been hospitalized ... Israel’s Foreign Ministry said at least 10 Israeli citizens had been hurt in the violence and two others were missing.... The police did not comment on the reports that people were missing."[3] This is consistent as to the number injured with the two refs in the article currently.

The most accurate statement as to the number injured would seem to be: "at least 10 Israelis were injured, with five of them hospitalized." 184.153.21.19 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Why trust a foreign body for the amount of injured when much more reliable local sources state it was 5? This isn't an attack perpetrated by the police so there's no reason to believe they're wrong, the IFM hasn't provided how it could have a more accurate figure than the country that runs the hospitals. Galdrack (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For the same reason that The NY Times reports it. Plus, countries have reason to track such information vis a vis its citizens. Plus, there’s no conflict. 146.203.129.25 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Recommended source

I don't have time for it right now (maybe later), but I recommend this reconstruction by Dutch newspaper Volkskrant as a source. Dajasj (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone please provide context and neutrality.

The way this article is currently framed is that the Israeli fans behaved poorly and then as a postscript, there happened to be a riot and they were attacked. The lede now is all about what they did wrong and next to nothing about the actual riots. Could someone please straighten this out with some context and neutrality. The Maccabi fans interrupting the minute of silence wasn't nice but that's in the lede?? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the instigating aggressive and racist behavior by the Israeli fans prior to the eruption of violence should indeed be mentioned in the lede. Though i agree with you that booing during the minute of the flood victims isn’t that important or much related here.

As for the reason that there is not much said about the violent incident details itself is that there is not much things to tell, just a violent riot that caused 10 injuries after a football match, thats all. Stephan rostie (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think the booing by the Israelis during the moment of silence for Spain should remain as it's being widely reported on social media as a motive for violence. Mozumder (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The ethnicity of attackers

Many of the attackers are actually of Moroccan Riffian descent living in Amsterdam, why isn't that mentioned here? 196.87.40.128 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that discusses the ethnicity of the majority of the attackers? Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Geert Wilders appears to be claiming this, but we should wait for reliable sources. Dajasj (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit request: Add Islamophobia to background, not just antisemitism, as this involves attacks instigated by Jews against Muslims. Thanks.

To maintain article neutrality and by preventing Jews as the only victims, please change:

There has been a significant increase in antisemitic incidents in the Netherlands during the Israel-Hamas war.

to:

There has been a significant increase in Islamophobic and antisemitic incidents in the Netherlands during the Israel-Hamas war.

You can use any of the news sources describing the rise in Islamophobic incidents in the Netherlands, such as https://www.newarab.com/opinion/dutch-pro-israel-politicians-contribute-islamophobia

or

https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/anti-semitism-and-islamophobia-in-the-netherlands-concepts-develo Mozumder (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I see no connection to Islamophobia that isn't WP:OR. The term is not used in our article. So, no reason to talk about Islamophobia in the background. Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request : Add Mossad agents under the infobox

Since sources [14] and [15] confirm that Mossad agents accompanied Maccabi fans during the November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, adding this detail to the infobox would improve clarity and comprehensiveness. Their presence is a significant part of the event’s context, highlighting the level of security involved. Including this information aligns with Wikipedia’s principle of providing a complete, unbiased account, as it captures all notable aspects that shaped the security and perception of the incident.

As this fact is already established in the article’s body with reliable sources, this addition would not be controversial. Imteghren (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any sourcing to say they participated in the clashes themselves? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

While Mossad agents did not engage directly in the clashes, they were present to support the security of Maccabi fans, adding an elevated security dimension to the events preceding, during and after the attack. Their presence underscores significant preparatory measures and security protocols important to understanding the incident's scope.

Including this detail in the infobox provides context on the level of coordination involved, which would benefit readers’ comprehension of the events. Noting Mossad’s role as 'supporting presence' (e.g., Mossad (supporting role) ) improves clarity and aligns with sources [14], [15], as well as the quoted statements below.

Quotes from the following sources:

Subsequently, the Mossad sent a message to Dutch authorities requesting that they bolster security in the vicinity of the stadium where the Maccabi Tel Aviv match was taking place. However, the NSC was not briefed on this step, the official says.

On Tuesday, Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reported that, in addition to Maccabi’s regular security personnel, Mossad agents will join the team in Amsterdam to provide maximum protection.

"I have instructed the head of the Mossad (David Barnea) and other officials to prepare our courses of action, our alert system and our organisation for a new situation," Netanyahu said in a video statement during a meeting at the foreign ministry to oversee the evacuation of Israelis from Amsterdam.

https://www.barrons.com/news/israel-pm-orders-mossad-to-prepare-plan-to-prevent-unrest-at-sporting-events-a975aea3

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/security-official-indicates-a-lack-of-coordination-between-mossad-nsc-on-threats-to-israelis-in-lead-up-to-amsterdam-attacks/

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/sports/article-827683 Imteghren (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing the statement from Palestine Football association

Ref: https://x.com/PSFA28/status/1854981506256846889 Abvayad (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing statement from the State of Palestine

Ref: https://x.com/Palestine_UN/status/1854908908881477785 Abvayad (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abvayad: It would be best if you could find a secondary source reporting on it. While WP:PRIMARY sources regarding this can be also reliable, secondary sources are preferred. GrabUp - Talk 03:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp Secondary sources

- https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/hamas-israeli-crimes-in-gaza-led-to-amsterdam-unrest-18230058

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/8/israeli-football-fans-clash-with-protesters-in-amsterdam Abvayad (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

- https://nltimes.nl/2024/11/08/palestinians-blame-amsterdam-attacks-maccabi-fans-despite-telegram-calls-violence Abvayad (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abvayad:  Done, Thanks GrabUp - Talk 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing references to Maccabi fans behaviour on returning to Israel

The times of Israel ran an article, which included more video of Maccabi fans chanting anti-Arab slogans at Ben Grunion similar to the ones that allegedly triggered the attacks. This is important to establish that the chants were a consistent theme, the fans are unrepentant about the behaviour, and that a group of them were clearly were not acting like the victims of antisemitism, but instead were acting like hooligans on an away trip to cause damage.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/maccabi-fans-filmed-chanting-racist-slogans-against-arabs-upon-arrival-at-ben-gurion-from-amsterdam/ Notso Stupid (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't use a live WP:NEWSBLOG for this. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing media reported links between Maccabi and the IDF

If you are going to allow comments that allege that the attacks were preplanned, it seems that you should also include reference to the fact that at least one media outlet has suggested a link between Maccabi and the IDF.

Here's one article in the Helsinki Times

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/25763-israeli-hooligans-racist-chants-and-provocation-in-amsterdam-spark-international-outrage.html

Notso Stupid (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the source's reliability, and they say "reportedly" without elaborating on what led them to the statement... seems like probably just speculation based on the fact that most Israelis serve in the IDF? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the source is unreliable and the claim unattributed but it's about balance. Where's the support for the claim that Maccabi fans preplanned the attacks? Even the word 'indicated' used on this page creates a bias because the cited article using the word 'alleged.' Notso Stupid (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Notso Stupid I agree that the source is unreliable and the claim unattributed but it's about balance.

Consider WP:FALSEBALANCE.

As I've said earlier on this page, Wikipedia follows; it doesn't lead. If you're concerned the article is biased, find reliable sources to counter that bias. Openly admitting that a source is unreliable and a claim murky, but then saying it should be added anyways for "balance," is not the way to go about things here. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing reference to Maccabi fans prior history of this type of behaviour

The Middle East Eye ran an article on this incident. Within the article is this observation:

These fans are an expression of a culture that is not just prevalent among a handful of racists; rather, it has become routine in stadiums, with chants of "death to Arabs" or "may your village burn" often heard in Israel long before 7 October 2023.

The behaviour of the Israeli fans in Amsterdam was thus nothing new. A recent report by the New Israel Fund found a significant increase in expressions of violence in football stadiums in the 2023/24 season, with incidents rising by 18 percent - a significant increase over the previous year, which had already seen violence and racism reach a decade-high peak.

Here is a link to the original article. It contains a link to the New Israel Fund report in Hebrew.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-football-hooligans-bring-culture-genocide-amsterdam Notso Stupid (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Notso Stupid MEE has this piece marked as an opinion column - going by WP:NEWSOPED/WP:RSOPINION, it could be used for an attributed statement by the author, but unless evidence is provided that he's an especially notable subject-matter expert, it's highly discouraged to be used for statements of fact in Wikivoice. The NIF report could maybe be used, but it's similarly a primary source, and we'd also need someone here who can read Hebrew. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's an English article by the NIF

https://www.nif.org/stories/human-rights-democracy/reporting-racist-incidents-in-israeli-soccer/

Here's a link to Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/videos/2007/6/24/fighting-racism-in-israeli-football

Here's another by NIF

https://www.nif.org/stories/shared-society-combating-racism/reporting-on-racism-in-soccer/

Plus there are numerous other articles about fans targeting Muslim players, the controversy surrounding Beitar FC. etc.

. Notso Stupid (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Include attacks against Maccabi fans on Wednesday

I don’t have the permission, but can someone please include the following in the article:

“On Wednesday night, November 6th, an Israeli man ended up in an Amsterdam canal, with someone on the quayside shouting the Dutch antisemitic slur “kankerjood” (literally “cancer Jew”) to the man in the water.” Source: https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/229412/spanningen-in-de-stad-afgelopen-nacht-palestijnse-vlag-van-gevel-gehaald-en-man-in-de-gracht WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Doing it Dajasj (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added an additional sentence, with one more source:

On Wednesday night, November 6th, an Israeli man ended up in an Amsterdam canal, with someone on the quayside shouting the Dutch antisemitic slur “kankerjood” (literally “cancer Jew”) to the man in the water. The man in the water was also forced to shout ‘Free Palestine’.” Second source: https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/hoe-de-oorlog-in-het-midden-oosten-amsterdam-in-geweld-onderdompelde~b7d4494b WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks again. For completeness, the uncensored version of the video as published by AT5 can be found here https://x.com/NasreRotterdam/status/1854477194090713122 WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-meaningful opening description should be removed

Current opening reads:

On 7 November 2024, following a UEFA Europa League football match in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv, and Dutch club Ajax Amsterdam, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted in a series of attacks. Some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had been filmed beforehand pulling down and burning Palestinian flags and chanting anti-Arab slurs.

Why does a page describing a violent coordinated mob attack against fans need to include a description of the victims' fan hooliganism?

In a different page about women rape, would you find the need to describe that the victims were wearing short skirts?

Frzporsa (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it is widely reported that these burnings (likely) provoked the attacks (which is not the same as justifying the attacks). Dajasj (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Because the chronology is clear. The provocations by the Israeli Ultras took place before any attacks upon them.

The current lede is awful and is a biased whitewash in Wikipedia's voice. That intro needs to go, or to be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. What would you change specifically? Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The opening chronology is backwards, and that is a highly partisan presentation of events. Saying Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted and then had been filmed beforehand burning a Palestinian flag creates the false impression that this was instigated as attacks on the Israeli football spectators. Which will then be excused by some editors as, "Oh, but we mention both viewpoints!". That's not good enough. WP can't flip the order like that, to present the consequence as the initial cause.

This has to begin with the events that began it: a range of provocations by the Israelis, both inside and outside the stadium, some violent. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley the chronology is as such because the mass-scale physical violence is the primary subject of the article (we don't start the lead of Shinzo Abe's assassination by describing his dealings with the Unification Church), was a notable escalation of the situation, and affected a wider group than just the provocateurs - if it'd remained vandalism/bigotry/other general hooliganism by racist Maccabi ultras, we likely wouldn't have an individual article on it and it'd probably be filed away as another comparatively minor incident(s) at Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war and/or Islamophobia during the Israel–Hamas war. The proper chronology is presented anyways starting with the background section and following throughout the article.

That's also all not to say that the lede becoming fully chronological would probably induce the opposite partisan complaint that we're framing the attacks as justified. As I said above, there's objectively a gap between football fans being bigoted assholes and angry mobs physically assaulting said fans - to claim that the former justified the latter would be equivalent to (wrongly) claiming the pro-Israel mob that attacked students at the UCLA encampment a few months back was justified because the encampment used inflammatory rhetoric, or that said rhetoric is just as bad as assault. In this case, the "we mention both viewpoints!" is the correct path to follow. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Images circulating, videos showing

Why do we emphasize that images or video show something, when reliable sources confirm something took place? It makes reading the article unnecessarily hard and more like a collection of social media posts? But maybe I am not aware of a rule, so please let me know. Dajasj (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Many of the sources simply say that images showed something or that something was on a video circulating but they make clear that it is not known when exactly it took place. If reliable sources qualify things by attributing them to the images, videos, or police, or a person, we should do the same with the same level of caution and qualification. Andre🚐 10:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Antisemistism > Anti-Arab???

I know this article is fresh and new and most of the 'reliable' sources are claiming these attacks to be 'anti-semitic', but I just feel like the language used in the article is bias towards the Maccabi supporters. They had clearly provoked and instigated the Arabs in Amsterdam, but I feel that it is just blipped over. Let's not forget those, there are two sides to this story, and one is being taking more seriously. Fishthatflies (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you want changed specifically, and why? Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fishthatflies I’ll repeat what I commented above:

Two things can be true at once here:

• We should cover the Maccabi supporters' behavior prior to the match. That objectively shouldn't be whitewashed (as some have already tried), as it almost certainly raised tensions in Amsterdam prior to the attacks and provides some degree of context.
• We shouldn't artificially create a WP:FALSEBALANCE in framing the behavior and attacks as one and the same. There's objectively a gap between football fans being bigoted assholes and angry mobs physically assaulting said fans - to claim that the former justified the latter would be equivalent to (wrongly) claiming the pro-Israel mob that attacked students at the UCLA encampment a few months back was justified because the encampment used inflammatory rhetoric, or that said rhetoric is just as bad as assault.

A large majority of RSes are effectively doing what I've described above - they note the Israeli behavior, but still frame it as an attack on Israelis because large-scale physical violence is logically a step up from inflammatory bigotry.

Also, but I just feel like the language used in the article is bias

Then find reliable sources to counter that supposed bias. We follow, not lead - if most RSes say it’s antisemitic, we do too. It’d be WP:OR to do otherwise. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your point about WP:FALSEBALANCE: It is a well-attested fact that the first assault was conducted by Maccabi hooligans against a local cab driver. I agree with you in principle, but the facts are not as you portray them. Carlhakon (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Chronology

Hi @טבעת-זרם, you added the coordination by taxi drivers. However you added it before the Wednesday events, while it appears the coordination started after the events (as discussed in later paragraphs). So it is duplicate and suggests it started earlier than it did, afaik. Dajasj (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

In background, please change "attack by Palestinian terrorists" to "attack by Palestinian militants" per MOS:TERRORIST — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Amsterdam City Councillor Jazie Veldhuyzen

Large amount of info here that needs to be included: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jnFNkZB-RE0&si=_p7TOQvheke14M00 Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

SkyNews reliability

SkyNews re-edited a story about this because it "didn’t meet Sky News’ standards for balance and impartiality." Kire1975 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Good call-out. Let's make sure the citations in the article are accurate Andre🚐 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that they actually deleted commentary from the original reporting in order to reduce mention of Maccabi fans' violence, in fact. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

misrepresentation of telegram messages

"calls for attacks on Jewish supporters thoughout the day were shared in Snapchat and Telegram groups.[33]"

The referenced article and its screenshots contain no mention of attacks on Jews, but of Israelis and Zionists. They may also be Jewish, but the wording here makes it sound like they were being targeted for their religion and not because of war, politics and the events of the previous evening. Lorenai (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

But the source specifically says "Jews." Andre🚐 18:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they refer to the RTL source, so other wording is relevant. Not all Telegram/Whatsapp/Snapchat groups use the same words obviously. Perhaps use "Maccabi supporters"? Dajasj (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources showing that they were asking people if they were Jewish and referring to Jews Andre🚐 19:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but this question is about the messages. The RTL sources uses other words like Lorenai said. Dajasj (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The messages include the phrase "Jew Hunt" Andre🚐 19:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

In one Telegram group, while the RTL article cites groups that use Israelis and Zionists. Dajasj (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Although I see that I wrote the sentence, including "Jewish supporters". But that was not in the source. Dajasj (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's in the Telegraph source. Andre🚐 19:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add mention of "Amsterdam Pogrom" as an alternative naming

Given the frequent reference to the Amsterdam attacks as the "Amsterdam pogrom", I request that the opening sentence is reworded to: "The November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, also known as the Amsterdam pogrom, were a series of attacks targeting Israeli fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv occurred in Amsterdam, Netherlands, on the night of 7 November 2024."

The "November 2024 Amsterdam attacks" have also been repeatedly referred to as "the Amsterdam pogrom" - see examples such as these articles by Ynet News, the Anti-Defamation League, the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle and Der Spiegel.

It is common for incidents to be referred to by multiple names, which are acknowledged in the opening sections of their respective Wikipedia articles. For example, see the article for the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, which also acknowledges the alternative namings of "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" (among Palestinians), "Black Sabbath" and "Simchat Torah Massacre" (among Israelis) and "7 October attacks" (internationally). Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: Some comments here have been removed per WP:ARBECR IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support addition as it is used by the mayor of Amsterdam and not just certain media outlets Shadow4dark (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

as it is used by the mayor of Amsterdam

What is used by the mayor of Amsterdam? Because she said it reminded her of pogroms, that means we should use "Amsterdam pogrom" as a title for this article? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not in title just in lede. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In Wikivoice? As an alternate title (which is what this thread is about)? Why do you think a non-RS saying something reminded them of a pogrom justifies either? Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above states "reworded to: "The November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, also known as the Amsterdam pogrom," We don't need change the title to a pov point but just add alternative titles in to lede. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

[4]

Because she said it reminded her of pogroms, that means we should use "Amsterdam pogrom" as a title for this article?

[5]

As an alternate title (which is what this thread is about)? Why do you think a non-RS saying something reminded them of a pogrom justifies either?

This is now the third time I'm asking you. Why would a non-RS saying something reminds them of a pogrom mean we should use "the Amsterdam pogrom" as an alternate title? Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/11/jewish-history-behind-dutch-soccer-attacks/680601/ Shadow4dark (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So instead of answering that question you share a link to article in the culture section (WP:RSOPINION) of The Atlantic calling this event the "Dutch Soccer Pogroms" in the WP:HEADLINE. I can't read past the paywall. Are you suggesting a change be made to our article? Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, just showing RS source as i can read it here. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:ARBECR

The President of Israel is calling this a pogrom is not sufficient grounds to call this article "Amsterdam pogrom", and you are not an EC editor. You may not leave comments that are not straightforward edit requests. This is the third time you have been reminded:

[6], [7] Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The term 'pogrom' is not suitable for this article and could be argued to hyperbole. This whole incident is nothing more than badly behaved racist football hooligans starting violence then setting themselveses as victims. No different to Millwall fans going to Birmingham City and going on a rampage. The only difference here is that not many Millwall fans would be serving or reservists military nor claim victimhood.

This whole article has strayed into propaganda and should be deleted or reduced to a one line entry on a football hooligans entry elsewhere. HuttonIT (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Only one of those sources uses the phrase "Amsterdam pogrom" and it's an op ed by someone obscure. The other sources either describe it or compare it to a pogrom, but don't call it "the Amsterdam pogrom" and in at least one case don't even call it a pogrom but note that it has been compared to a pogrom. Would be totally inaccurate to say it is called this, let alone in the opening sentence of the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The motives

There isn't enough evidence of "antisemitism" other than politicians claims (according to the citation in the motive section, skynews and new Arabia only repeat what the politicians says). Likely it was a violent reaction to Israeli football hooliganism and bigotry rather than actual antisemitism Dauzlee (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No source. Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no source and concrete evidence for the alleged "antisemitism" either. Only dutch or western politicians says it was antisemitic. At least change it to like "antisemitism (alleged)" Dauzlee (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We have major news outlets directly calling these attacks antisemitic. [8] [9] [10]

We have other news outlets using quotations around "antisemitic acts" [11] [12] [13] Dazzling4 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN did not prove it was antisemitic other putting it on its headline.

According to NYT: "The authorities in Amsterdam on Friday were investigating what they called antisemitic attacks on Israeli soccer fans that took place amid a charged atmosphere surrounding a soccer match involving a visiting Israeli team." It quote the authorities, does not prove the attack is actually antisemitic.

According to WSJ: "AMSTERDAM—Dutch authorities said they were tightening security to protect Jews and Jewish sites as they investigate an overnight wave of violence in which Israeli soccer fans were chased and beaten by crowds in the capital in what leaders of both countries called antisemitic attacks." Again they says it was the authorities who claim it was antisemitic. Leader of a country is not an expert.

According to Reuters: "AMSTERDAM, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Amsterdam banned demonstrations for three days from Friday after overnight attacks on Israeli soccer supporters by what the mayor called "antisemitic hit-and-run squads", and Israel sent planes to the Netherlands to fly fans home." A mayor is not an expert.

According to npr: "Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said on social media he had followed updates over the "antisemitic attacks" on Israeli supporters of the Tel Aviv Maccabi soccer team "with horror," and said the violence had been "completely unacceptable," while Israel's foreign minister, Gideon Saar, said on social media he plans to travel to the Netherlands urgently for an "unplanned visit.""

According to the guardian: "Amsterdam police have made more than 60 arrests after what authorities called “hateful antisemitic violence” against Israeli football fans."

They all quote authorities and country leaders while not proving or giving evidence the attack is because of antisemitism. In conclusion there isn't definitive or concrete evidence that the motives is because of antisemitism, at best it should be changed into "antisemitism (alleged)" Dauzlee (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If national leaders, local authorities, and reliable news sources generally referring to or treating the attacks as antisemitic isn’t enough to list antisemitism as a motivation, what do you suggest is? The Kip ^(contribs) 03:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not hearsay. Kire1975 (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The US president also confirmed the "40 beheaded babies" hoax. Politicians aren't journalists or academics. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Schooff is Islamaphobic. Kire1975 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the version of the article looked like when this request was made, but currently the last para of the lead says "The attacks on Israeli fans were widely condemned as criminal and antisemitic. The behaviour of Israeli fans was also criticized as anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism." This seems like a good formulation to me. We don't call the motives in wikivoice; we accurately and neutrally and concisely say that these allegations have been made, and then the body spells them out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

More neutral use of words and avoid framing

We need to be careful about how we use some words in the text. Recently @Lewisguile has been adding "some" in specific parts but remove others "some". For example: "some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted in a series of organized attacks. Prior to the attacks, some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had also engaged in acts of vandalism and violence in the city". If we decide to use "some" please use in a consistent way. Obviously not all Maccabi fans were targeted but if you remove the first "some" but keep the second you are framing an specific POV in the edit. On the other side, "organized" is still something under debate. Note that if a large group of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans (as we saw in the images and videos) were involved in acts of vandalism and violence we could say as well "organized acts of vandalism and violence". AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had removed the first some. That's my bad. I have added it back in.

As for organised, I have taken that out. Targeted covers the same ground. I was trying to make sure the new opening (which now also includes reference to the actions of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans) didn't come across as too one-sided against either side. Lewisguile (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Lewisguile. Sorry if I have been a bit rude. It's been two days of intense work on this page, and some of us are exhausted. Also note that you can have a different opinion than mine about the wording so you don't have to change according to my opinion. Only if you agree. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal preference would've been to leave organised out as only some sources say that. But I didn't want to downplay anything. Since you agreed with my instinct, I took it back out. We can always add it back in if there's consensus to do so.

And don't worry! I completely get it. We have all been there. I hadn't commented much on this page, but I have been active on some other related pages, so I appreciate it looks like someone swooping in to ignore consensus. Lewisguile (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024 (4)

Remove the motive in the infobox as no reliable source warrants mentioning the motive in wikivoice And change "Pro-palestinian mobs" into "Pro-palestinians" to serve NPOV — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 14:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Request moved from archive for further consideration -OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2024 (3)

Full stop in ""fuck you Palestine"." in November 6th section. The full stop should be removed or included in the quote as "fuck you Palestine." Rynoip (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rynoip:  Not done. Placing the period outside the quotes follows from our Manual of Style's prescription to use logical quotation. Mach61 00:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox question (Amsterdam residents?)

It's a big city are you saying everyone that lives in Amsterdam attacked or was attacked? Seems strange to have that in the infobox if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would go as far as to suggest we remove the parties part from the info box. Govvy (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Not every fan of Maccabi Tel Aviv was involved either. I don't see this as a problem, and I don't think readers will be confused or make that misunderstanding. Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2024 (2)

The "Caused by" line in the infobox is kinda a shitshow.. Can we at least put some context or sense of chronology within it to make it make sense??

Like, maybe change it into "Anti-Arab racism and Anti-Palestinianism faced/confronted with Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism"

At least this is expressed by the body of the article — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a shitshow in the infobox right now. The article body currently only quotes other people stating what the cause is; it isn't stated in wikivoice what the cause is. So for now I think the cause should just stay out of the infobox entirely, until we can definitively state the cause in wikivoice. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: independent confirmation provided by VRT

Independent confirmation of the video from Wednesday night 6 November where a man is swimming in the canal was requested. ()

Hereby a source that provides this independent confirmation, and provides a detailed context of the versions of the video that have appeared on social media with corresponding narratives. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/11/08/check-rellen-amsterdam/

Could someone please include this source in the article (as I don't have the permission), and that the man was either pushed into the canal or jumped into the canal in fear (which of the two it was cannot be said with certainty). What can be said with certainty, this source confirms, is that the man while in the water was forced to shout "Free Palestine" to be left alone by pro-Palestine people, and that the slur "kankerjood" ("cancer Jew") was shouted towards him while he was in the water. It is also confirmed that the incident happened on Wednesday night November 6. WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Done Dajasj (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit Request: non-Jewish sources calling it Pogrom

"Jewish news reports have described this incident as a pogrom." Should become "Jewish news reports, major Dutch newspapers and Dutch politicians described these events as a pogrom."

Jewish sources are not the only ones calling it a pogrom, so do titles of Dutch news articles. I think "events" is far more neutral than "incident", which expresses an opinion that this is (wiktionary) "A (relatively minor) event that is incidental to, or related to others.", (Merriam-Webster) "an accompanying minor occurrence or condition".

References:

https://www.msn.com/nl-nl/entertainment/nieuws/halsema-heeft-het-over-pogrom-hele-krachtige-term/ar-AA1tKFM6 whose title translates to "Halsema talks about 'pogrom': 'Very powerful term'". Halsema is the mayor of Amsterdam.

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/midden-oosten/pogrom-in-amsterdam-krijgt-diplomatiek-staartje-inlichtingendienst-nederland-faalt-israel-reageert-woedend whose title translates to "Pogrom in Amsterdam gets diplomatic tail: Intelligence Netherlands fails, Israel reacts furiously"

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/politiek/bizarre-eerste-reactie-uit-het-amsterdamse-stadhuis-op-pogrom-in-amsterdam-scooterjongeren-terroriseerden-joodse-supporters whose title translates to "Bizarre first reaction from City Hall to pogrom in Amsterdam: 'Scooter youth' terrorized Jewish supporters"

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/binnenland/knettergekke-beelden-van-pogrom-in-amsterdam-hamas-moslims-checken-id-bewijzen-in-amsterdam-ben-je-israelier whose title translates to "BREAKING IMAGES of pogrom in Amsterdam: Hamas Muslims check ID cards in Amsterdam: “Are you Israeli?!”"

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/politiek/thierry-baudet-veroordeelt-pogrom-in-amsterdam-en-wijst-oorzaak-aan-dit-is-wat-massa-immigratie-ons-brengt whose title translates to "Thierry Baudet condemns pogrom in Amsterdam and points out cause: 'This is what mass immigration brings us'"

https://www.telegraaf.nl/watuzegt/958801344/amsterdam-is-synoniem-geworden-voor-de-eerste-europese-pogrom-na-7-oktober whose title translates to "Amsterdam became synonymous with the first European pogrom after Oct. 7"

https://www.telegraaf.nl/watuzegt/919786574/pogrom-op-7-oktober-was-gewelddadig-symptoom-van-collectieve-psychose-miljoenen-moslims whose title translates to "Pogrom on Oct. 7 was violent symptom of collective psychosis millions of Muslims"

https://www.powned.tv/article/israelische-media-furieus-na-pogrom-in-amsterdam-overgeleverd-aan-antisemitische-arabieren~2441/ whose title translates to "Israeli media furious after pogrom in Amsterdam: 'At the mercy of anti-Semitic Arabs'"

Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these are perennial sources. — hako9 (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They are not listed as perennial sources for English Wikipedia? Obviously, they are not in English. The curated list is mostly for English-language sources. My edit request is to say local-to-the-Netherlands sources call it a program... and that happens in the local language (Dutch), not English.

English Wikipedia says of De Telegraaf: "De Telegraaf is the largest Dutch daily morning newspaper." So what two of the references I gave say is that "The largest Dutch daily morning newspaper calls it a pogrom in its headlines / article titles".

The Dagelijkse Standaard doesn't have its own English Wikipedia article but is used as source all over it, just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Dagelijkse+Standaard&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

PowNed is a Dutch public broadcaster; again my edit does not say "it is a pogrom as shown by these sources", but "a sizeable part (but not the totality nor the consensus) of the public discourse in the country where it happens calls it that", and a public broadcaster titling on it is evidence of that.

The MSN link contains an article by RTL Boulevard, again a rather famous-in-the-Netherlands, and long-running, source from one of the main Dutch media sources, the TV channel RTL4 which English Wikipedia qualifies as "the most-watched commercial station in the country". However, it is not used as source of their own editorialising, but as source of a quote of the mayor of Amsterdam. At the Dutch level, they seem to be a pretty notable and reputable source. I see no reason to think they would have grossly misquoted the mayor.

Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources. The mayor's statement is already in the article, Dagelijkse Standaard has been described by NRC, a newspaper of record, as the Dutch Breitbart, & the linked articles from De Telegraaf are both opinion articles.

As for PowNed, I can't find much on it in general, but it doesn't seem like much of a reputable source, they look to be very entertainment based. Again though, I can't really find if anyone holds them in high regards. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of these seem to be week sources. Current article wording is "Some Israeli and Dutch authors have described this incident as a pogrom" which is accurate and seems to address the OP's concerns. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Update on rescue flights

Not 3, as the article currently mentions, but 8 rescue flights have been deployed over the course of Friday and Saturday, repatriating a total of 2000 Israelis. The flights were operated by El Al, and free of charge for those in possession of a flight ticket from Amsterdam to Israel with any airline. No IDF rescue planes were deployed after all.

https://matzav.com/2000-jews-evacuated-from-amsterdam-to-israel-on-el-al-rescue-flights/ WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the permission, so could someone include the above in the article. Please correct the article, it currently states that 3 El Al rescue flights were deployed, but in the end a total of 8 rescue flights were deployed.

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828296 WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please change all mentions in the article of 3 rescue flights being deployed to it actually being 8 rescue flights that were deployed? See the above WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done.Lewisguile (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is absolutely ridiculous

WP:NOTFORUM. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Many people are working hard to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information, and articles like these drastically impact the credibility of this platform. The current article makes it quite literally impossible to discern the truth. It is overwhelmingly clear that you are trying to justify the recent pogrom against Jews. The majority of this article portrays Israelis as the aggressors, insinuating that this pogrom was acceptable, even somewhat justifiable, rather than disgustingly barbaric. If that's the case, and actions like running over Jews with cars, hunting, stabbing them, and stomping on their heads while unconscious are justifiable, does that mean I could do the same to Palestinian protesters who are chanting for a global intifada against Jews? Obviously not. The logic currently being used is so clearly flawed, that intent is clear. I am appalled, and hope a wave of honest editors discover this ridiculous article. Wikipedia needs to be reigned in if it’s going to survive. — Techiya1925 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC) And regarding the accusations of it just being a case of “football hooliganism”, have you ever seen a Real Madrid fan plead ‘I’m not Spanish’ as a mob of 15 people armed with knives and clubs beats him unconscious? That man cried ‘I’m not Jewish’ because he knew that was the reason he was being beaten up. And this article is providing cover for that. Techiya1925 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Please note, this is not a forum. Simply propose the changes you wish to make and provide independent, reliable sources to support them. Everything in the article is well-sourced, including Jewish news outlets like The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and others. GrabUp - Talk 06:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The article's title is partial and misleading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ignoring the partial wording throughout the entire article, the title stands out like a sore thumb. This article is already extremely partial by dealing with a football Hooligan clash and treating it as a racist antissemitic attack, but the title specifically misleads the reader. It is worded in a style identical to that of the November 2015 Paris attacks, a series of terror attacks that left 138 dead. A Hooligan fight should not be treated the same as a terror attack because it is not the same as a terror attack. It was also not a "riot" as the infobox suggests. I believe the article should be renamed to indicate that the event wasn't a one sided attack but rather a clash, a fight involving the two sides, where both sides fought and not just one side attacked.

This is of course ignoring that the very existence of this article is dubious, as it is the first time I've seen an article dedicated to a specific fight between groups of supporters. If any of these football-related fights that gets media repercussion should have an article, then perhaps there should be an article dedicated to the fights between Peñarol and Botafogo supporters in Rio de Janeiro that resulted in a serious dispute between the government of Rio de Janeiro, CONMEBOL, CBF and AUF and in the arrest of 21 people . My point being that we shouldn't create articles everytime supporters fight and everytime there is repercussion to those fights. Eduluzsci (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done reliable sources refer to the attacks as antisemitic attacks. Andre🚐 19:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

How about this primary source that shows Maccabi fans running around with metal poles and wooden planks? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHIOYyJ95A

Primary source overrules secondary sources, surely?

TagPro129 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually the opposite. Andre🚐 21:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What? You can see it with your own eyes in the video. How could a journalist sitting at his computer 100 miles away constitute a better source than a journalist filming the action for the entire world to see?

TagPro129 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources, not original research. Andre🚐 21:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Why exactly can a news report not be used as a source? I’m confused. Could you explain the issue with the source please?

TagPro129 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement about what can be seen in the video. There isn't anything actionable about your edit request that I can tell. Andre🚐 22:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan A primary source is not original research. A video tells the story better than State-owned media. Eduluzsci (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan Cite reliable sources that said thus without any relevant bias Eduluzsci (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan The nature of whether it was motivated by antissemitism or not isn't specified by media, but by the belligerents. This response also ignores that the events weren't attacks but rather confrontations -- as another user showed a video depicting the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans also engaging in confrontation -- and as such should be classified as clashes, fights, or confrontations, but not as attacks. As I've shown, the classification as "attacks" is factually incorrect and misleading. Eduluzsci (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maccabi fans "attacked Arab and Muslim residents, and vandalized houses and businesses with Palestinian flags"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per Common Dreams and Al Jazeera:

“The violence reportedly started when the far-right Israeli soccer hooligans began chanting racist and violent anti-Arab slogans, attacked Arab and Muslim residents, and vandalized houses and businesses with Palestinian flags.”

Al Jazeera's report includes comments by Amsterdam city council member Jazie Veldhuyzen:

“The Israeli fans instigated the violence after arriving in the city and attacking Palestinian supporters before the match, an Amsterdam city council member said.

‘They began attacking houses of people in Amsterdam with Palestinian flags, so that’s actually where the violence started,’ Councilman Jazie Veldhuyzen told Al Jazeera on Friday.

The Common Dreams article (and a growing number of articles from other outlets) alleges that the details of this current event are not being adequately covered in mainstream news sources. However, I would note that even BBC has already begun describing this event as being fueled primarily by the Maccabi fans' violence, and not by antisemitism.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 00:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actions by Maccabi football fans need highlighting

I think this article is really lenient in regards to the actions of the Maccabi football fans, who, let's not forget, instigated this violence in the first place.

The problems I have with this article is that, in my opinion, it doesn't focus enough on the vile actions by the israeli soccer fans that kickstarted the street fighting we are seeing currently. It does mention it, of course, but I think the interruption of a moment of silence for the Spanish flood victims with chants of "there's no schools in Gaza, because all the children are dead" with a proud sense (all because Spain recognized the State of Palestine), or the attacking of Dutch people who might look Arab or the tearing down of palestinian flags, as well as chanting "death to arabs" and "let Israel win, fuck the arabs", deserve more initial attention, at least in the header. By the way, all I mentioned earlier was filmed and posted by media organizations, though western outlets are noticeably shying away from the initial incidents that started this. And about the attacks against Israelis and Jews, of course it is horrible and should be displayed on this page, but I think it is being focused on too much relative to the events that kickstarted these riots, and I see them more as a reaction to the initial violence and attacks by the visitors, which managed to bring out the more violent and antisemtic members of society under the pretext of "hey, they attacked us first, we can beat them up", rather than the main event that happened. My proposal is that the page first mention in the header the actions from the Maccabi hooligans, and then the ensuing protests, violence and attacks following it, so as to place them in chronological order and avoid seeming that this page is displaying the reactionary violence as the main takeaway of these riots. GabMen20 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done not an actionable edit request. Andre🚐 22:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli fans provoked the attack

Reports are also coming from sources that Israeli fans first chanted anti-Arab slogans, vandalized private property, and even attacked a local taxi driver, confronting law enforcement. We should cover both viewpoints, not just label this attack against Israelis due to media bias toward Israel. GrabUp - Talk 09:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There are also numerous reports that the attack was premeditated, prior to the game, with hundreds of perpetrators reportedly organized and blocking off alleyways and streets. This would debunk the entire biased narrative, which attempts to shift blame onto the victims of an atrocity. It is not customary for Wikipedia to engage in such rhetoric.

See these articles by DPA International and the Jewish Press, which claim that Israeli authorities had pre-warned the Dutch authorities, as well as this article by DW, which claims that Israeli authorities had already pre-anticipated tensions. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Neutral Editor 645: Can you provide WP:RS to back your claim There are also numerous reports that the attack was premeditated, prior to the game, with hundreds of perpetrators reportedly organized and blocking off alleyways and streets. GrabUp - Talk 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp two things can be true at once here:

• We should cover the Maccabi supporters' behavior prior to the match. That objectively shouldn't be whitewashed (as some have already tried), as it almost certainly raised tensions in Amsterdam prior to the attacks and provides some degree of context.
• We shouldn't artificially create a WP:FALSEBALANCE in framing the behavior and attacks as one and the same. There's objectively a gap between football fans being bigoted assholes and angry mobs physically assaulting said fans - to claim that the former justified the latter would be equivalent to (wrongly) claiming the pro-Israel mob that attacked students at the UCLA encampment a few months back was justified because the encampment used inflammatory rhetoric, or that said rhetoric is just as bad as assault.

A large majority of RSes are effectively doing what I've described above - they note the Israeli behavior, but still frame it as an attack on Israelis because large-scale physical violence is logically a step up from inflammatory bigotry. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have read they were doing this for two days without police stoping them, that the violence they encountered was opposition to their behaviour on the third day. LamontCranston (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And it's important to note violence against the Arab cab driver and others, theft and destruction of property, and violence on both sides instead of framing this as one side attacking another. 173.49.61.70 (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

References

General question: Are Middle East Eye and TRT World trustworthy sources? I mean, we also don’t cite Al Jazeera here on Wikipedia, don’t we?--FPSalman (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable sources. Who told you we don’t cite Al Jazeera? GrabUp - Talk 11:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@FPSalman: Even Israeli news outlet confirmed this. GrabUp - Talk 11:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Al Jazeera is Qatar’s governmental propaganda channel. I always thought Wikipedia was professional, but okay.--FPSalman (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@FPSalman: BBC is also a British government-funded channel, so is it also a propaganda channel? Frankly, yes, BBC is a biased news outlet towards Israel. GrabUp - Talk 11:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not just TRT and middle east eye, Times of Israel , Wafa, BBC all reported the same too Stephan rostie (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

TRT is a state-owned enterprise, and Middle East Eye has been criticized for bias as well. Generikuser (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Generikuser: What about BBC? Is it not state-owned? GrabUp - Talk 15:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between TRT and BBC. TRT has been cited here (WP:TRT) as being unreliable in cases of COI. As the topic matter at hand involves Israeli citizens, Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. BBC has been cited here as being reliable as per consensus on Wikipedia.

DarkSpartan (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@DarkSpartan: They were not talking about what Wikipedia accepts or not; they were saying TRT is state-owned, so I gave the example of the BBC, which is also state-owned. Consensus can be changed, but that’s not what we are discussing here. Even the BBC mentions what TRT and the Middle East Monitor have stated. GrabUp - Talk 15:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp: can I see the BBC link/s in question? DarkSpartan (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no question about the BBC’s article here. GrabUp - Talk 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I ask for this as you may not use those sources (TRT or Middle East Eye) as they are both unreliable. You can use BBC source however, as it is reliable. DarkSpartan (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@DarkSpartan: You can’t say that TRT and Middle East Eye are totally unreliable. Aside from TRT’s status, can you provide any RfC or consensus where Middle East Eye was considered unreliable? GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Replying to the IP: I don’t have to get consensus for that, because sources like BBC, CNN and Times of Israel also mentioned that Israeli fans first chanted anti-Arab slurs, attacked private property, assaulted a taxi driver, and pulled down a Palestinian flag. GrabUp - Talk 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Maccabi fans "attacked Arab and Muslim residents, and vandalized houses and businesses with Palestinian flags"

why is this discussion locked with no comment or reply at all? Why is discussion of including the violence committed on both sides not permissible? 173.49.61.70 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to several influence campaigns operating in the area, editors must have 500 edits and a 30-day old account to participate in the Israel-Palestine subject area.[14] The exception is to submit an edit request clearly explaining what content to change. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph is biased and misleading

The first paragraph of this article says that Maccabi fans were targeted in the attacks. While this may be true, it does not even mention the destruction of property and hate speech that the Maccabi fans were engaging in beforehand (as well as violence). Dutch officials have acknowledged this themselves, many saying that the Maccabi fans instigated the riot. The first paragraph is the first thing that shows up when a Wikipedia article shows up in a search result, and it is often the only part that people read. The fact that it is so unbalanced in its reporting of facts goes against Wikipedia's mission to be an unbiased source. There must be some kind of mention of the Maccabi fans contributing to instigating the riot, for example, the tearing down of Palestinian flags, and chanting "fuck Arabs" and "fuck Palestine". Otherwise, I believe that this article will be very unbalanced and it is almost cherrypicking information.

Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Except for the recently added second paragraph of the intro, I believe the introduction reflects the sources. The most important thing are the 7 November attacks, discussing the background comes slightly later (now fourth paragraph, before third). Including it in the first leads to other complaints, see above. We can't do justice to these events in one paragraph. Dajasj (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Arrested

@Techiya1925, your source doesn't mention the number 63? And neither do the most recent Dutch sources. Could you revert it? Please note that thr same info you added has also been mentioned two paragprahs below. Dajasj (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, check this New York post article, which I added as a citation to the article.

https://nypost.com/2024/11/09/world-news/4-anti-israel-amsterdam-pogrom-attackers-remain-in-custody-report/

Here is the number 63 from the Jerusalem Post:

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828247 Techiya1925 (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

But Dutch sources mention 62, even after the NYPost one. I think we should follow them because they have closer contact Dajasj (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The last update from the prosecutor was:

Vier verdachten nog vast na geweld in Amsterdam, meer arrestaties verwacht - https://nos.nl/l/2543867 Dajasj (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have found another sources which describes the discrepancy. It's 63 now Dajasj (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Spanish floods duplicate

The spanish flood silence is mentioned twice now, but different motivations are given. Can't these paragraphs be merged? Or better yet, integrate the entire Motivation in the other parts Dajasj (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have done this, but feel free to revert it and continue discussion. As far as I can see, everything is duplicate Dajasj (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Templates neutrality disputed

@Techiya1925, could you clarify why you have disputed these sentences? Per template docs: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." Dajasj (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I added the neutrality tag because the way the edits were written appear as an attempt to shift the focus of the attack to demonize the victims, which is entirely inappropriate. So I disputed the neutrality of the comments. (Obviously, it is clear that the genocide accusations in Gaza are disputed, and anyone who reads that paragraph can see that it is biased.)

Do you disagree with the tag? If so, why? Techiya1925 (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me why they are disputed. It should not be up to me to guess why you think so or defend the tag without knowing why you dispute it.

Anyway, I am in favor of removing the genocide accusations and the question whether Israel should be included in the League. One can discuss these accusations much better on other pages and they are not really relevant here. The key is that there are tensions related to the war and Israels role in it.

Regarding the far right ultras, this seems at first glance relevant to the incidents and I don't see why it is disputed. Dajasj (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. For historical context see:

• When far-right football fans take to the streets in Israel, Deutsche Welle, 8 July 2020

Andreas JN466 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@3skandar, semi-related: could we avoid discussing the war in-depth in the article. In particular, I don't think we need to mention how many casualties are women and children. It adds little value to the incidents and people can read about the war on the other pages. The key here is that there is a war which has lead to tensions. Dajasj (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reuters verified video

The video verified by Reuters is included in the paragraph about after the game. However, are we sure the video is from after the game? And even then, it seems a bit weird in the paragraph discussing the attacks itself. I think provocating chants have enough discussion in the article, so could perhaps be left out in that specific paragraph? Dajasj (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit changing order

@Dajasj Could you have another look at this edit of yours? The change in sequence really doesn't make sense. Andreas JN466 11:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I missed a sentence. Dajasj (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Dajasj. Andreas JN466 13:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Remove passive voice in opening sentence

The first sentence of the article should be updated to remove the use of passive voice (which obscures who is doing the attacking). The first sentence currently ends with "Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted in a series of attacks." That should read instedad that "attackers assaulted Israelis" (citing the New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/world/europe/amsterdam-israel-soccer-fans-attacks.html) or "according to the mayor of Amsterdam, 'antisemeitc hit-and-run squads' targetted Maccabi Tel Aviv fans" (citing Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/israels-pm-aware-very-violent-incident-against-israelis-amsterdam-his-office-2024-11-08/). DNL (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestions are invalid. Attackers is redundant and anti-Semitic is disputed. Jontel (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, the closing sentence of the first section ("The attacks on Israeli fans were widely condemned as criminal and antisemitic.") should be moved up to the end of the first paragraph of that section. That would mitigate the problem caused by the use of passive voice. The new paragraph would read "On 7 November 2024, following a UEFA Europa League football match in Amsterdam, Netherlands, between Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv and Dutch club AFC Ajax, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted in a series of attacks. The attacks on Israeli fans were widely condemned as criminal and antisemitic. The behaviour of Israeli fans was criticized as well."

DNL (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: New incidents on night of 9 November wherby people where requested passport on the street

I don't have the permission, so could someone please add that an Amsterdam police chief reported that new incidents occurred in the night of 9-10 November. People that appeared Jewish were threatened and requested to show their passport in the street.

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 WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

See also: https://nos.nl/liveblog/2543687-politie-veegt-dam-leeg-tientallen-pro-palestijnse-demonstranten-opgepakt (update from 13:35) WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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 sources above.

WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

somebody added it. Rainsage (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for clean up

I suggest that in the second column for "Parties" in the infobox, Pro-Palestinian groups/football attendees and Amsterdam residents should be separated and put in a bulleted list to make the layout better to read. Internationed (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Pre-planned

@Stephan rostie: given that the second sentence is about victim-blaming, it seems important to highlight that (at least according to some sources) the attacks were planned in advance anyway, and not move it down. That creates a very non-neutral lede.

Alternatively we could remove both bits of information from the lede, but the current lede is quite short so I don't see a reason not to include both. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Half of the first paragraph is devoted to creating a justification for the attack. The current wording is non-neutral and only presents the view that the Israelis provoked it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well. Andre🚐 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be both: [15]. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, incidents of Maccabi fans causing a ruckus has been widely reported & covered on video. The details regarding pre-planning of attacks however is still being looked into & while obviously there was some coordination, it's still uncertain as to how much the telegram/snapchat coordination influenced events.

How many of the people who attacked Maccabi fans had any involvement with these online groups & how many in those online groups were just talking crap/being terrible?

We don't know, not yet & we shouldn't give a WP:FALSEBALANCE in the lead acting like we do. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You could also argue that we don't "know" (?) if the bad behavior by the Israelis led to the attacks. I'm not sure how we would prove this either way to the level that would satisfy you. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying we should wait as currently, there's a lot more reliable coverage of Maccabi fan's behavior being discussed then online coordination.

This event is already being scrutinized enough that, if this was a significant factor, there'll be more then enough sources to support its inclusion in the lead in little time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Was the line that used to be in the lead not sourced? Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't sourced, in fact, the statement is still in the article with that source. I just think we should get more coverage before we consider it due for the lead. I'm not contending its accuracy, but its current WP:WEIGHT. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There is significant coverage of the planning aspect (or of claims thereof), like

• JPost "a pre-planned attack against Jews"
• The Telegraph "what some said were pre-planned attacks"
• ToI says "apparently pre-planned attack" (albeit in a caption)
• CBS, The Times, and others quoting Netanyahu "premeditated antisemitic attack"
• WSJ, BBC, AP, NYT and many more don't say premediated, but arguably imply it by covering Telegram usage

Even if the coverage was minimal, it would still be an NPOV issue. If a statement is disputed (outside of fringe sources), we wouldn't put it in wikivoice, even if the original statement had more coverage. Here we're using wikivoice statements to imply that the attacks were caused by hooliganism, which is disputed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say quoting Netanyahu without further analysis counts as meaningful coverage, but only "covering Telegram usage" without mention of planning or collaboration, definitely doesn't.

I haven't seen a single source reporting on this incident who hasn't brought up hooliganism, but by comparison, few have covered the idea of premeditated attacks & even fewer have confidently validated it in their own voice. So no, I don't think these two factors should be given equal weight in the lead as many reliable sources have yet to do so either & until they do, I don't think it's reasonable to compare the two. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have moved things around. It now starts with yhe attacks first in the lede, while giving context later. I have included info about being planned.

But please remove De Telegraaf sentence from the article. "Well in advance" could suggest a day, a week a month, which is vague. But De Telegraaf says with well in advancd it meant that everyone could join from all around the Netherlands. Given it is a small country, even a few hours is enough. The two other sources are more specific on this. Dajasj (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that as an improvement of sorts, but I think it can be both true that there are videos of instigatory actions by the football fans (some articles note they don't know when those videos were from), and that the attacks were somehow premeditated. These two aren't mutually exclusive. Andre🚐 08:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ruling out they are premeditated (more than 24 hours). The Mossad appears to think so, while the NCTV and Dutch police don't so far. The issue is that the Mossad isn't really precise and neither is De Telegraaf. What we do have however, are both our sources being very specific on when these calls started. So I think we should discuss them instead of the vague "well in advance". To be clear, if more reporting emerges it was planned before Wednesday, we should it include, but I just don't see enough evidence yet. Dajasj (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason i moved it down from the lede is because it was a unique argument made by a low quality source which is undue for the lede. this is not argued or even reported the claim by the WP:BESTSOURCES such as the gaurdian, skynews, associated press, NYT, etc.

Accordingly, i don’t think de telegraph report argument belong to the lede. Stephan rostie (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

By low-quality sources, you mean just the ones saying pre-planned / premeditated in their own voice? There are many sources which cover the planning without such language in their own voice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Entire lead is centered around justification of the attacks?

“Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were filmed pulling Palestinian flags from Amsterdam houses, chanting anti-Arab slurs, assaulting people and vandalising buildings as well as a taxi. At the stadium, radical Maccabi fans interrupted a minute of silence for the victims of the 2024 Spanish floods with chanting and whistles before the match.”

WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:FALSEBALANCE

This is a clear attempt at demonizing the victims. If questionable behavior is justification for indiscriminate violence, then the same can be applied against the Palestinian protesters chanting daily for intifada.

It’s like writing in the lead of an article about a woman who got raped, that she was wearing scantily clad clothing, begging for it.

This shouldn’t be brushed off, why won’t people acknowledge this concerning portrayal of events? Techiya1925 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, it has become well documented by reliable sources that violence has been used at different moments by Maccabi supporters. See for example Het Parool and Volkskrant and more. All sources mention these incidents and so do we. It is by no means however a justification, we are not the judge of anything anyway. Suggestions are welcome on how we can improve a balance, but leaving out well documented information is not an option. Dajasj (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

YWN calling for an international boycott

The paragraph about YWN reaction seems either not relevant or need a important rewriting. YWN is a local online newspaper based in Brooklyn without international relevance. It is unclear that we should give this relevance of a claim for a boycott by a local online newspaper. For how it is written it discussing more the role of Uber rather than a sensible Jewish group reaction. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"Calls for "Jodenjacht" or "Jew Hunt" were shared via social media groups after incidents in the days before the match."

Started by an IP in violation of WP:ARBECR. Also, "WikipediaNummer1" is not extended confirmed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Calls for "Jodenjacht" or "Jew Hunt" were shared via social media groups after incidents in the days before the match." If calls were a few days before the game, why conduct that happened the day before the game is described first in the paragraph. This is chronologically incorrect. 2.55.165.229 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Source? All sources I have read say the messages started on Wednesday night after the first incidents. Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) The first known calls for a “Jew hunt” on social media indeed occurred on Thursday. https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/calls-for-jew-hunt-preceded-attacks-in-amsterdam-e3311e21 (Archived: https://archive.ph/lYoJB) WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC) No, on wednesday night. See the Telegraph source, I believe it refers to the same message. I think that WSJ means the call is for Thursday. Dajasj (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Let me clarify, I meant in the very early morning of Thursday, so on Wednesday night one could say. https://www.threads.net/@wouterwaayer/post/DCKoouzs9cJ?xmt WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC) And as for the other call for a “Jew hunt” on Whatsapp that the WSJ describes: “A screenshot of a pro-Palestinian WhatsApp group chat, viewed by the Journal, called for a “Jew Hunt” on Thursday and referred to a standoff on Wednesday night in which a group of Israeli fans were cornered by a crowd that police said included taxi drivers who had responded to an online call to mobilize.” I’m not sure whether it should be interpreted as as a call for “a Jew hunt happening on Thursday” (in which case the article provides no information about the day on which the call was made), or whether it should be interpreted as: on Thursday a call for a Jew hunt was made on WhatsApp. WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I'm sure I read that the Maccabi fans were active over three nights before the match? Or three nights including the match, perhaps. I'll see if I can track that down, but I'm pretty sure it was in the article when I edited it yesterday AM. Lewisguile (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I remember something too, but there were no calls for violence as far as I have read Dajasj (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Lebanon

@AyubuZimbale, could we avoid going into detail on the war? Lebanon is seen as spillover from Israel-Hamas war, so I don't think it is necessary to include it as well. We risk summing up all sort of spillovers from the war, all of which is not very relevant. The relevant thing is that there are tensions as a result of the Israel-Hamas war. Dajasj (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Other editors have thanked me for this addition because they consider it relevant. It is just a view that only the Israel-Hamas war is relevant. My view is that the increased tension in several European countries is greater now because of the situation in Lebanon (and Syria with 300000 refugees from Lebanon fleeing to this area). Think that in Europe refugees from these two countries are an important community. For the Arab community, the spread of the conflict is a major concern. We can of course find a better way to include both. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

In what way is it relevant? The reporting is limited, but the violence is mostly linked to Dutch-Moroccan people, not Lebanese or Syrian. I have checked the reconstructions from all major Dutch newspaper. All mention "Gaza" and "Palestine" (although the first mostly through quotes of other people), but none mention Lebanon at all. Dajasj (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

My intention in adding this is not to summarise all sorts of spillovers, but to better identify the underlying sources of concern that may lead to this sad conflict in Amsterdam. It is true that the death toll in Gaza is much higher than in Lebanon at the moment, but the fact that there is a ground invasion in another Arab country and such a large number of displaced people is precisely one possible source of greater concern in the Arab community. My addition is only a line and a half, so I honestly don't see why not add this part of the background. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any RS making the connection you are? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There many videos showing the Maccabi fans speaking about "F-ck Arabs", so it is not only about Palestine. Although it may be the spark, there is more to it than that. You can read https://www.dw.com/en/violent-protests-in-israel-when-far-right-football-fans-take-to-the-streets/a-54463825 to have a background from what was happening in Israel well before the Israel-Hamas war. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not enough to justify a mention of Lebanon IMO. There are a lot of Arab countries. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of Arab countries but only one invaded at this moment by Israel (Lebanon), just 1 month ago before this happening in Amsterdam, and if you see most of the debates in the European civil society it is not at this moment only about Palestine but also about Lebanon. In other words, they are not two independent things, they come together. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

and if you see most of the debates in the European civil society it is not at this moment only about Palestine but also about Lebanon

WP:OR. I'm looking for RS to make that connection. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is that for many analyst both Lebanon and Israel-Hamas war are just part of the same conflict. When the Maccabi fans said "Let the IDF finish the work. F-uck Arabs" this means IDF operations so both Gaza and Lebanon. There are tons of links of videos and news with this information. AyubuZimbale (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You making that inference is what WP:OR is. If it's such an obvious connection then find RS for it. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no inference. Both Lebanon and Gaza are part of the same war/conflict. The mass media uses the term pro-Palestinians, is a generic term that also includes those how ask the end of the Israel attacks in Lebanon. The same communities do demonstrations in Netherlands for both at the same time for example (https://www.instagram.com/workersforpalestine.nl/p/DARecFCo9cu/) and also (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOt32kRfb4) From sometime in Netherlands the demonstrations are about both at the same time. As you can see in the links the demonstrations in Amsterdam are for both Gaza and Lebanon together. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop mentioning WP:OR so many times (talk-guidelines ask not to repeat posts). I gave you links to support my assessments, which are meant to be constructive, like other people in this thread (rather than just blocking). I point out that in your first reply you said ‘Not enough to justify a mention of Lebanon, IMO’, which means you acknowledge that your assertion was an opinion. Instead I provided you information that indicates: (1) Both Lebanon and Gaza are part of the same war/conflict from an historical point of view (links given below) (2) The social movements promoting demonstrations in Amsterdam consider both together (again as part of the same war/conflict) (3) Group of analysis of the conflict identify both as bound up. (4) Maccabi fan songs were about Arabs and not just Palestinians, something I have also given you historical references to prior to the current war in Gaza. (5) as I have already mentioned there are many places in europe where civil society speaks out and protests are not only about gaza but about both gaza and lebanon together. (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/protests-erupt-across-europe-against-israels-attacks-against-gaza-lebanon/3382644) (https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/9/29/worldwide-protests-against-israels-war-on-lebanon-gaza) (https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/09/30/protesters-in-paris-demand-end-to-israeli-air-strikes-on-targets-in-lebanon) AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You already replied to my comment. I have no idea what you mean by blocking. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor blocks a constructive discussion if he/she repeat the same post several times accusing of inference and WP:OR. when others are given arguments, links and references. Disheartening. AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

None of my comments were "the same". I was genuinely encouraging you to find a RS for your claim. Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thanks then for encouraging me to find a RS. I misunderstood your comments. Apologies. In the last month there were many news in Europe informing of demonstrations about Lebanon and Gaza always together. It is hard to believe that someone in Europe/World is not aware of that. AyubuZimbale (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessarily about the one and half line, it's more that next others will want to include Iran firing missiles to Israel, and then another thing will be included, and we'll end up with an entire discussion of the war which will be controversial. That's why I prefer to keep it limited to what is immediately relevant to the attacks (based on RS). Dajasj (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I see some sense in it. I am not opposed to rewriting it differently. But the fact that the Western media did not mention the conflict in Lebanon may have other reasons than the reality of the background. At the time of a conflict all the media in a country tend to replicate some of the content, or the mainstream news agencies, I think we will certainly see over time other kinds of analysis. Now, Iran is not an Arab country, so I don't expect that Iran will be included here. In Lebanon there is an invasion that began 1 month ago, a war with 1.5 millions of displaced, thousands of deaths and a substantial part of the hospital infrastructure destroyed, it is hard to believe that this is not part of the background. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention the Arab–Israeli conflict? It is broad enough to include everything, and we indeed don't have to go into specifics in this article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I support that Dajasj (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It may be a solution. In general the invasion of Lebanon is seen as part of the same war that started in Gaza (https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine-lebanon/israel-invades-lebanon) which is something also commented by Israel as there was continuous crossfire with Hezbollah since October 8, 2023. The same Israeli sources as early as November 2023 were talking about bombing Beirut (https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-772795). In general it seems difficult to see as independent two conflicts that have been going together from the beginning. Therefore to mention the Palestinian deaths and not the Lebanese which are part of the same conflict is strange. To consider that the bombing of Beirut and the more than 1.2 million displaced people do not play a role in the view of the Arab community in the Netherlands is hard to believe. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Also as I already commented before the demonstrations in Netherlands/Amsterdam are about both together Gaza and Lebanon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOt32kRfb4) and the calls for demonstrations in Amsterdam mention both together AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

In the section Muslim groups and figures, Zuhri's statement is summarized using the phrasing "Zuhri stated that the events in Amsterdam illustrate the public reaction to what he termed an ongoing genocide in Gaza". However, per established consensus re the Gaza genocide, this phrasing is POV. Please change "what he termed an ongoing genocide in Gaza" to "the ongoing genocide in Gaza."

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We're decidedly not at the level of consensus yet. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)