Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 12 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the November 2024 Amsterdam riots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contents of the 2024 antisemitic riots in Amsterdam page were merged into November 2024 Amsterdam riots on 8 November 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Football This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Palestine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

It is requested that a photograph of the preceeding game or riots be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Amsterdam may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Reports of being pre-planned in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Butterscotch Beluga Copy/pasted straight from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is the Spanish flood relevant ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 9 November 2024

It has been proposed in this section that November 2024 Amsterdam riots be renamed and moved to 2024 Amsterdam football riot. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Moreover, Google Trends is at best a rough proxy for prevalence in secondary coverage, which is what ultimately determines WP:COMMONNAMEs. Here I think it's best to look at secondary coverage directly. Even if we specifically search for articles containing "Amsterdam riot", most such articles still use "attack" more than "riot". — xDanielx /_C\ 16:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mairav Zonszein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Hamas response be moved under 'Palestine'?

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

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

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

Merge from section on AFC Ajax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got it.

I'm leaving the arrest count alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarding the sources for the claims of your contribution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to run through these with you again

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

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

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

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

1RR violations

I have just noticed that Techiya1925 has seemingly performed no less than ten 1RR violations within 24 hours. Are there any admins editing here? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive coverage of responses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No mention of antisemitism in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

This

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

reads much less neutral then this

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

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

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

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

"Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”." Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you... not read what I wrote?

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

"A taxi driver was also assaulted"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we're in agreement? I'm arguing against a framing that would suggest criticism against the two groups was comparable. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Reactions from journalists and academia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure of “Response” section

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

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

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

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

Mentioning of the Spanish flood vicitims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses sections

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

To cite some actions that can be performed:

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

2- Summarizing the statements by the heads of governments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but you asked for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much detail about Israel-Palestine conflict

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested simplification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@3skandar, please revert yourself, your edit is restoring a non neutral introduction that is missing what Israel did to Palestinians. See discussion above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Image added

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

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

False reporting and from Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

This edit request to November 2024 Amsterdam attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 Not done. I've trimmed the responses section to address the tag that was there, so this is no longer relevant.

Vandalism today

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

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

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected redirect at November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redundant Sentences in the Lead

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

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

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

Belgium

A few days after the attack, on November 11, the Belgian media announced that the Antwerp police arrested six young men in the town of Kiel, who were planning to attack Jews in Antwerp in imitation of the events in Amsterdam https://www.demorgen.be/snelnieuws/antwerpse-politie-vandaag-opnieuw-waakzaam-na-oproep-tot-jodenjacht~b6147e6e/?referrer=https://he.m.wikipedia.org/ 2.55.165.229 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

"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)

You describe maccabi oltras

"De harde kern van de Israëlische club is relatief klein, en staat bovendien niet op vijandige voet met die van Ajax." "The hard core of the Israeli club is relatively small and is not on hostile terms with that of Ajax." Mention it is small group. https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/hoe-de-oorlog-in-het-midden-oosten-amsterdam-in-geweld-onderdompelde~b7d4494b/?referrer=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/ 2.55.190.96 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

1. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/nov/26/west-ham-antisemitic-chants-sickening
2. https://www.dw.com/en/antisemitism-in-european-football-time-to-change-the-chants/a-59106242
3. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-757798
4. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46563997
5. "Relschoppers bekogelen voertuigen en politie in Amsterdam, drie aanhoudingen". nos.nl (in Dutch). 2024-11-11. Retrieved 2024-11-12.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class football articles
• Unknown-importance football articles
• WikiProject Football articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Start-Class Netherlands articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the Netherlands
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Amsterdam
• Requested moves
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests