Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks

How is the Spanish flood relevant ?

Part 1

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.[1] 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)

Agreed. It also may be a case of a translation issue; according to the Wall Street Journal, "Maccabi fans were initially unaware of the moment of silence because it had been announced in Dutch." https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/calls-for-jew-hunt-preceded-attacks-in-amsterdam-e3311e21 DNL (talk) 17:49, 13 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)

well, it wasn't by any means the most significant thing, but it was commented on by a large number of RSs in setting out the context and sequence of events.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Qhairun, @AyubuZimbale, @Dajasj, @Lewisguile, @Kingoflevant, @GabMen20, @MaeseLeon, @Bitspectator, @BobFromBrockley, @Drmies:

Tagging everyone from the above discussion and this one so we can get centralise the discussion in one section. Apologies if I missed anyone who commented in either.

I've already set out what I think the bar for inclusion per Wikipedia:DUE and Wikipedia:SYNTH should be:

If no source explicitly claims that the minute of silence for the floods and the attacks are connected, we should not imply that there is a connection by mentioning the minute of silence for the floods in the article about the attacks. I've yet to hear a convincing answer, the only answer I've heard at all was Lewisguile's, which I've answered. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Lewisguile. News articles don't have to append "and by the way this is related to the thing we're reporting about" to the end of every sentence featuring a new detail. That's obviously implied. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to cite 95% of anything. The Spanish floods minute of silence is part of the behaviour of the Maccabi fans, which is part of the background of this event. I don't think it's leadworthy, but it should be in the body. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that this should be in the body, and I am neutral about keep in the lead-intro. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Their refusal to mark the minute's silence for the victims of the flooding in Spain, while singing genocidal slogans, is very relevant. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Many sources describe it as part of the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans' ongoing protests/anti-Palestinianism. Others directly link it to Spain's various pro-Palestine stances.

• The BBC says, "It is alleged those same sentiments [anti-Palestinian racism] were on display in Amsterdam this week, with fans chanting racist slogans, as well as refusing to mark a minute’s silence for the victims of the flooding in Spain": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyge1587e5t
• Sky News reports claims that it was due to Spain cancelling an arms deal with Israel: https://news.sky.com/story/what-we-know-about-violence-involving-football-fans-in-amsterdam-13250618 (as repeated by Yahoo: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/israel-says-deploy-rescue-mission-052600715.html)
• ABC (Australia) says it was "possibly because Spain has been highly critical of Israel's conduct in Gaza and Lebanon": https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-09/amsterdam-maccabi-tel-aviv-ajax-football-violence-anti-semitism/104580470
• Middle East Monitor notes it in the context of the fans chanting "There are no more schools in Gaza because we killed all the kids": https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/west-buries-genocide-making-victims-israel-football-thugs
• The Journal said, "Spain, alongside Ireland and Norway, formally recognised the state of Palestine in May": https://www.thejournal.ie/israel-rescue-football-fans-from-netherlands-6536562-Nov2024/
• Euronews says, "Earlier this year, in May, Spain officially recognised the State of Palestine": https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/12/amsterdam-reacts-unravelling-days-of-tensions-that-rocked-the-capital?utm_source=news.google.com&utm_campaign=feeds_europe&utm_medium=referral
• Turkiye Today mentions "genocidal" chants: https://www.turkiyetoday.com/world/maccabi-tel-aviv-hooligans-clash-with-locals-in-amsterdam-after-ajax-match-76180/

But I refer back to my prior comment because we currently don't make any claims about the minute's silence; we just state what happened and has been reported frequently by RSes. If we said "they did this because of x", and that wasn't supported by RSes, then it would be a problem. We don't, so it's not.

However, this has probably persuaded me that we should say something like "possibly because of Spain's perceived pro-Palestinian stance" or something similar. Or we should make it explicit that many people have seen this as part of the anti-Palestinian demonstrations.

Either way, I think it should be in the article. I think it probably should be in the lede, too, simply because it appears so often in reliable sources, but it's not a deal breaker to remove it from there.

My personal preference would be to move the sentence about calls for "Jew hunts" before the mention of the minute's silence, and then mention the latter afterwards. It should probably also be edited to clarify that they interrupted the minute's silence to make anti-Palestinian comments, since then it's immediately obvious why it's relevant. It would also be in chronological order, too. Lewisguile (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems a good idea. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the argument that the implication that it's relevant because of it's inclusion in sources suffices without an explicit claim or explanation of its relevance. Sources can be biased but still be considered reliable, meaning they can make misleading implications or associations, without impacting their status for wikipedia. The reason is that we are only meant to use explicit claims of fact made in sources - we are not meant to even imply something not explicitly stated.

That said, if everyone's on the other side of this, I won't keep harping on about it, even though I don't know what policy basis justifies inclusion. I still think there's no reason for it to be in the lede, nor to speculate about the reason for it in wiki-voice. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, we couldn't report on anything unless the RSes explicitly say "this is relevant", which they don't in the vast majority of cases. That multiple RSes cover something is proof of relevancy. However, as I mentioned above, there are also plenty of statements about why RSes think it's important and/or why they think it happened. It's generally seen as part of the anti-Palestinianism and/or Spain's perceived support for Palestine over Israel. Ergo, that should probably go into the body text as well.

Did you see my prior suggestion? I think we should make the second paragraph of the lede chronological, so it goes like this:

"The events took place amid heightened tensions related to the Israel–Hamas war in the city, where 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. Calls to "Hunt Jews" were subsequently shared via social media the day before the match. Before the match began, some Maccabi fans also interrupted a minute of silence for the victims of the 2024 Spanish floods with chanting and whistles. Afterwards, Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were ambushed and assaulted in various locations across the city."

In my view, this is much clearer. You've got the major contentions up front (the "Jew Hunts", the chants) and it ends with the attacks. Then it continues as it is now with the comments from the mayor, the nature of the attacks, the casualties, and the emergency flights. I think that's fairly balanced, since it merely outlines the series of events before going into reactions/interpretations of those events. Putting it in chronological order also sets a precedent for future edits which makes it harder for people to re-edit the text to emphasize or de-emphasize their favoured narrative. Lewisguile (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the lead but (considering the coverage) it should be in the article. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Qhairun, we now have two talk page threads on this topic, the previous one being just three threads up from this one. It would have been sensible to review the existing talk and comment there. I wonder if we can merge the two threads into a single section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I second that. When I get to a computer later today, I may attempt to do it. Merging threads on mobile is a nightmare. Lewisguile (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lewisguile (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak support - I think "football riots" might be misleading, because it was not really related to the football itself. I mostly focus on Dutch media coverage: "Riots" ("rellen") appears to be pretty common[10][11][12] "Attacks" ("aanvallen") not so much as far as I can find, although obviously more specific incidents are described as attacks. Many sources generally refer to it as "Violence" ("Geweld"), which could also be an option. But based on Dutch sources, I would go for "riots" here. November might be needed in the title however, because I remember other incidents of violence earlier this year (although far less than this). Dajasj (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's difficult to comment on what WP:COMMONNAME is because nobody has provided English-language sources. However, Google Trends indicates that "attack" is consistently more common than "riot".[13] 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: [14] 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 ([15]) is not plural. so i made a 4-way comparsion ([16]) and it shows that 'riots' is slightly more popular than 'attack'. Mason7512 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• We should also consider not having a WP:POVNAME. "Amsterdam attacks" implies one side was doing all the attacking, while we do have RS that point out both sides partook in the clashes. Thus something like "riot" or "clashes" is more neutral. Sources say,
  • "police chief Peter Holla told reporters that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had attacked a taxi driver and burned a Palestinian flag"[17][18]
  • "Travelling fans verbally abuse locals and tear down Palestine flags before fights break out with Dutch youth"[19] 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)

The Israeli football hooligans were largely the perpetrators, not the victims. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was physical violence in both directions.

and you replied by saying:

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

When you say there is a:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support 2024 Amsterdam riot as best title. 2024 Amsterdam football riot is ok, but not as good.Smallchief (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support moving to November 2024 Amsterdam riot as per WP:NPOV. The current title November 2024 Amsterdam attacks is biased: it misleadingly suggests that Maccabi Tel-Aviv fans were victims instead of being also enacters of violence (e.g. when they attacked a Dutch-Moroccan taxi-driver & others). Erminwin (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is incorrect. A taxi driver claimed that on Wednesday, the day before the match, Maccabi fans had vandalized his car—not that they had attacked him. Ekpyros (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support "2024 Amsterdam riot(s)" or "November 2024 Amsterdam riot(s)". I agree with the points that Erminwin raised above. Furthermore, the two titles I mentioned aptly describe what happened last Thursday. Vida0007 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support "November 2024 Amsterdam riots", explicitly plural since the rioting has yet to stop. The attacks are just one aspect of the riots described on our page and its sources. I oppose the inclusion of "football" in the title, because the events clearly have much more to do with the Israeli wars than with ordinary hooliganism (presumably many participants cared little about the match, including many of the attacked and protesting taxi drivers). Support for inclusion of "November" to differentiate from for instance 2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupations (edited to include signature and "November" argument) Joortje1 (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Weak support "2024 Amsterdam riots" or "November 2024 Amsterdam riots" per above. Strong preference against "football". Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  They prefer any title with "riot" to one without, I guess? Lewisguile (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Sources for "attacks":

PBS: [20]

CBS: [21]

CNN: [22]

NBC: [23]

MSNBC: [24]

AP News: [25]

BBC: [26]

Reuters: [27]

New York Times: [28]

Washington Post: [29]

Politico: [30]

Fox News: [31]

JPost: [32]

LBC: [33]

US News: [34]

Sources for "Riot":

euronews: [35] - note that they include today's (Nov 12) arson attacks.

Fox News: [36] - they refer to the entire situation as "riots" for multiple days. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

PBS:

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

CBS:

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

CNN:

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

NBC:

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

MSNBC:

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

AP News:

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

BBC:

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

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

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

If rioters can't be used to riots, then attackers shouldn't be used to support attacks either. Just FYI. Either way, I suspect we will have to do a closer look at changing terminology in recent versus initial reporting to get a proper litmus test on this. Part of the problem is that early journalism is more prolific as papers report on each new detail as it emerges; once new info slows down, so does the coverage. But later articles are often more detailed, more nuanced and more accurate, so there being fewer of them isn't necessarily a sign that they should be ignored due to sheer numerical comparisons.

I'd be tempted to start looking at "explainer" and summary articles which delve into the entire sequence of events in depth. That way, we can determine how they frame things when more context and detail is known. That would seem to be the most convincing way to do it in the absence of scholarship. If the majority of overviews describe it as "x" then so should we. Lewisguile (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Headlines may not less reliable for factual information—but they are indubitably instructive when discussing how RS refer to events. Ekpyros (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article.

Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I conceded that—again, notwithstanding, they're eminently reliable when it comes to how sources refer to events. If 10 sources describe the September 11, 2001 terror attacks as "9/11" in their headlines, then those headlines are of course reliable when it comes to the question of how sources refer to the attacks, just as we accept that an opinion column is a RS for the columnist's opinion, but not necessarily for other factual information. The statement you flagged above—Their headlines all refer to the situation as "attacks"—is empirically testable, and thus the WP:HEADLINES guidance does not apply. Ekpyros (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What does it mean to "be overstated"? What is an "exaggeration"? What is a "sensationalized claim"? Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is specifically where WP:HEADLINES applies. We follow content, not titles.

Regarding your specific example, no we wouldn't care that news organizations put 9/11 in their headlines, we'd instead care if their content & analysis, persistently & reliably refer to it as such. WP:COMMONNAME would then apply as the September 11th attacks are nigh-universally referred to as "9/11".

In contrast however, a common name has not developed for this topic, with sources using varying terminology in their descriptions. As such, we use a descriptive title instead, based on the content of the event. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That list seems to reflect a bias toward what American media called the violence. 12 American outlets, compared to only 5 outlets from the rest of the world. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are two reputable Korean sources:

In this Korean article they characterize the situation as "이스라엘 축구 팬들을 상대로 벌어진 폭력" using the word "폭력" or "violence" specifically calling it "violence that happened against Israeli soccer fans." [37]

In this other Korean article they say "이스라엘 축구 팬들을 겨냥한 폭력 사태가 벌어진 것은..." similarly using "~을 겨냥한 폭력" meaning violence aimed at [Israeli soccer fans].[38] Dazzling4 (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"Violence" would be a better term to use in the article title than "attacks".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I suspect it also has something to do with the fact that many initial reports (suggesting that the violence was a one-sided ambush on Jewish football fans) proved to be highly inaccurate, and the original instigators turned out to be rioting Maccabi Ultras. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support "2024 Amsterdam riots" or "November 2024 Amsterdam riots".

"Riots" gives a more accurate idea of the events than "attacks". Indeed, "attacks" are perpetrated by one side against another while "riots" encompasses violence and damagr by more sides against each other and against the city as a whole (tearing down flags, burning taxis, attacking uninvolved citizens). ContiNuziali (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Vote struck per WP:ARBECR. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The title should be November 2024 Amsterdam antisemitic attacks—or potentially November 2024 Amsterdam attacks on Israeli soccer fans, which is a bit too wordy for my taste. Aside from the fact that those planning and organizing the attacks themselves described this as a "Jew Hunt", virtually every single RS notes that there was "antisemitism" and/or that the "attacks" were on "Jews"—and most have some combination of those words in their headlines. To call them simply "Amsterdam attacks" is silly—it sounds like the city attacked some entity (or vice versa), and tells us nothing notable about the actual attacks, other than where/when they occur. It would be like titling our article on the Battle of the Bulge the 1944-1945 Ardennes-Alsace hostilities. Ekpyros (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no question that the victims were targeted because they were Jews/Israeli, and this point should be emphasized. I would also support November 2024 Amsterdam antisemitic attacks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no question that Maccabi fans attacked people, vandalised people's homes and chanted genocidal slogans. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as others have made clear, most RS refer to "attacks" or "violence". DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

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's not OR to give a full account of the incidents. Neither any editors on this talk page nor any version of the article has ever implied those chanting "Death to Arabs" were the same individuals who were attacked, so there is absolutely no issue here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've had a look what sources there are:

• Het Parool has an opinion piece titled "Opinion: 'Every Maccabi fan should have thrown his scarf in the bin after the genocidal slogans over Gaza'". [39]
• Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (Dutch public broadcaster) quotes Dutch Denk (political party) politician Stephan van Baarle saying in the Dutch House of Representatives that "hypocritical politicians were silent as Maccabi thugs chanted racist and genocidal slogans about Gaza, vandalised Palestinian flags and attacked a taxi driver". [40] His statement is quoted by a good number of other Dutch outlets as well.
• The New York Times quotes van Baarle too: "Where were the police when Maccabi thugs chanted genocidal and racist slogans about Gaza?" [41]
• Trouw mentions in its live blog (15:37, 8-11-2024) a complaint from the Palestinian Authority that "genocidal chants" ("Genocidale gezangen tegen Arabieren en Palestijnen") preceded the attacks. [42]
• Middle East Eye says "The hooligans' mindset aligns with the genocidal culture that has permeated Israeli society since 7 October 2023". [43]
• The New Arab says, 'As reported by the Clash Report, the Maccabi fans, who were protected by police, “chanted anti-Arab slurs and a genocidal song in Amsterdam”, including lines such as “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left”, “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs” and “Fuck you Palestine”.' [44]
• The Times of Israel features a Clash report tweet speaking of a "genocidal song". [45]
• The Week (Indian magazine) says, "Meanwhile, unverified videos doing rounds on social media claimed Israelis allegedly chanting anti-Arabs slurs and genocidal songs about dead children in Gaza, even before the attacks began." [46]
• The Jerusalem Post reports that a French MP said Israelis "took up genocidal and pro-Netanyahu chants." [47]
• Anadolu Ajansı (state-run Turkish agency) quotes an Erev Rav member saying fans "sang racist and genocidal songs on public transportation". [48]

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

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

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

It's my personal view that these chants were genocidal, but we can't say that in wikivoice if a preponderance of sources don't say it. (Similarly, we can't call the later attacks a pogrom or attribute motive to any attackers without sources.) It might now be enough to say that some have described these chants as genocidal, if those people (e.g. the PA, maybe the French MP?) are noteworthy, but only one of the non-opinion sources here (The Week) seems to say it in their own voice rather than attributed BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism today

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

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

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

https://nltimes.nl/2024/11/12/three-arrested-another-night-unrest-amsterdam

https://nos.nl/artikel/2544156-relschoppers-bekogelen-voertuigen-en-politie-in-amsterdam-drie-aanhoudingen

Arrested people + calls during the unrest 2.55.180.23 (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If these are reliable sources, these could go in an Aftermath section at the end of the article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Condensing the "reactions" section to remove unduly weighted commentary

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

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

Reactions for removal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Can you provide evidence of Erev Rav being to the contrary of "small and obscure"? They would not even warrant having a wikipedia page. Their content is entirely distributed through Instagram and Twitter with a one paragraph 'about' section [49]. Additionally, if the cancellation of the Kristallnacht commemoration event is indeed an important aspect of these events reported on by major news outlets (which I have not seen to be the case) then that should be the core of this reaction. I.e., "A commemoration event for the Kristallnacht was canceled..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean "obscure" as in: "relatively unknown, not prominent or famous" [50] Dazzling4 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Erev Rav mentioned in (just few examples):

(1) Times of Israel in the topic of the article:

(2) NL times in the topic of the article:

(3) NH news (Dutch) in the topic of the article:

(4) Sky news in a close topic to the article:

(5) Dutch-news.nl in a close topic to the article:

(6) DailySabah in the topic of the article:

(7) Haaretz newspaper in a close topic to the article:

(8) APNews in a close topic to the article:

(9) WNL.nl news and radio channel in the topic of the article:

(10) oneworld.nl cultural newspaper:

(11) NOS.nl news (Dutch news) in the topic of the article:

(12) NRC.nl news in the topic of the article:

(13) Jacobin.nl interview:

(14) De volkskrant newspaper in Netherlands in a topic close to the article:

(15) Welingelichtekringen (local dutch news paper)

(16) Further info (Erev Rav is part of a network of Jews in Europe which represent a large number of Jews voices). (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, none of these articles provide WP:NOTABILITY for this organization, as they are mentioning the organization for the first time after the event occurred, and only mentioning statements it has made and nothing about the organization itself. Second of all, notability is not the only reason this should be excluded, but this uninvolved organizations opinions or statements on the situation are not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. As I said, if the cancellation of the Kristallnacht event is indeed important, then the fact that it was canceled should be the reaction. We do not also need to include some these organizations opinions on events that they were not involved in.

Also, as you can see, other editors are also leaning towards slimming down this section to only its relevant and important aspects. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not WP:CRYSTALBALL-ing about whether or not Gideon Levy will be relevant 5-10 years. I'm asking if a reader in the future, even 1 year from now, will care to read about the immediate reaction of an opinion columnist with 47k twitter followers who has no relation to the situation. The answer is obviously "no." On the other hand an official statement by the Israeli Embassy will be important to any reader. The passage that mentions Caspar Veldkamp does not give his opinion, but instead describes events as they happened so that is fine. On the other hand the sentence about Dilan Yeşilgöz can certainly be removed. Dazzling4 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You said the answer is obviously "no". This is your POV. The Israeli Embassy is not going to say anything different that Israel government already included in several parts, so honestly is like include several times the same opinion. The relevance is not only measured by Twitter followers. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy, he has several important awards in Israel about Journalist, several books about the topic, and a very long list of articles in European and Israel newspapers. AyubuZimbale (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, the notability of the person being quoted is not the only thing to consider. We are not going to add quotes from all sorts of notable but uninvolved people around the world who might weigh in on this event. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support reworking over cutting. If you look back a day or so, @Dazzling4, I had a discussion with @AyubuZimbale and a few others about the sources. The ones AZ mentioned above were re-added as they a) fit into the three subsections of interested parties (Israel/Netherlands/Palestine), and because they expressed the views of actual Israelis, Palestinians, and Amsterdammers. Kristallnacht was important because multiple Israeli and Jewish sources drew that parallel, especially as it pertains to the history of antisemitism in Amsterdam.

However, I agree reframing such as "A commemoration event for the Kristallnacht was cancelled because..." would be better to make the relevance explicit. I'll take a stab at coming up with someone that condenses these sources and see if that's more acceptable to more people. Lewisguile (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Lewisguile for your hard work in improving the article. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

It doesn't have to represent the vast majority of Jews, but a relevant Jews community in Netherlands. I gave many links above showing that it has a prominent relevance in the news. Note also that:

(1) Is is part of a larger network of Jews in Europe

(2) The paragraph included another NGO which is an international one with page in Wikipedia (it is not only about Erev Rav). AyubuZimbale (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As other editors have been explaining to you, its inclusion is giving undue weight to a small, uninvolved and non-notable organization, as if it represents a larger community that it does not. WP:RSUW Dazzling4 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dazzling4 I gave many references in the media about the relevance, and again I remember you that this is not only about Erav Rav (which I know you dislike) it is also about the international Platform "Stop Racism and Fascism Platform" and the cancellation of the Kristallnacht in Amsterdam as a response to the events of this page. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

"Also, a local Kristallnacht commemoration was canceled due to the unrest."
Dazzling4 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I like that proposal. [Eruv Rav] isn't notable, as evidenced by the fact that the page here doesn't mention them. Citing them gives undue weight to an organization that few if anyone referenced before these events. DNL (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to trim the Responses section as much as I could without removing the statements of substance. I have tried to keep in mind what people have said previously. Levy, for example, has been trimmed, as have a few other longer quotations. I've also rearranged them a little so the points flow together a bit better. Any thoughts? (Each subsection was done separately so individual parts can be reverted, if needed.) Lewisguile (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Lewisguile for your work on this. Sincerely appreciated. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did move the Kristallnacht stuff to Aftermath, as well, since that serves to expand that section while simultaneously reducing the Response section. It felt like an "aftermath" thing as much as a response thing. Lewisguile (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024: Melhem Asad, a Druze Maccabi Tel Aviv fan from northern Israel

You might consider including this in the 7 November section:

According to Mako, Melhem Asad, a Druze Maccabi Tel Aviv fan from northern Israel, protected fellow Israelis during the Amsterdam attack by speaking Arabic. He deceived the attackers, saying "They thought I was one of them. I told them the Jews were already gone, and they went the other way".

source: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/druze-maccabi-tlv-fan-misleads-amsterdam-attackers-by-speaking-arabic/ar-AA1tOYFw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.180.239 (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting this is sourced by MSN from Jerusalem Post. I wouldn't object to it getting a sentence in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Amsterdam authorities' statement

I have replaced the direct quote here with a version of @Andreas's summary here, since I had unintentionally deleted it from the text twice (the first time was intentional).

The first time, I was trimming the Responses section and felt it was already covered by the direct quote, which said the causes were "a poisonous cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior and anger about the war in Palestine and Israel and other countries in the Middle East". Andreas had tried to reinsert the text between my edits, so my final edit of that subsection overrode the second insertion.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss this here as necessary. I preferred the full quote anyway, but wanted to respect Andreas' suggestion and avoid breaking the 1RR. The version that's there is a bit of a compromise anyway, using snippets of the full quote, since I didn't feel it was appropriate to use "hooligan" in Wikivoice. Lewisguile (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile Thanks. But could we also please add the "and violence" back to the lead? The Dutch original (translation below) explicitly says:

• In een brief, die burgemeester Halsema ook stuurt namens hoofdofficier De Beukelaer en politiechef Holla, legt de gemeente nadruk op zowel het antisemitisme van de aanvallers als op provocerend en gewelddadig gedrag van Maccabi-hooligans. Beide hebben geleid tot het drama waarvoor Amsterdam wereldwijd is veroordeeld, zo schrijft het college.
• In a letter, also sent by Mayor Halsema on behalf of chief officer De Beukelaer and police chief Holla, the council emphasised both the attackers' anti-Semitism and the provocative and violent behaviour of Maccabi hooligans. Both led to the tragedy for which Amsterdam has been condemned worldwide, the city authority writes.

Currently we describe the behaviour of the fans as merely "provocations" in the lead. The city's statement said it was more than that, and we should reflect it accurately. Your shorter version of the quote in the body of the article reads fine to me – I guess we don't need to repeat the "toxic cocktail" bit there. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add this info to the lede, but you're welcome to add it in yourself. Lewisguile (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph

I propose the first paragraph of the lead neutrally define the event without going into too much detail. Here is what I propose:

On 7 November 2024, following a UEFA Europa League football match in Amsterdam, Netherlands, between Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv and Dutch club AFC Ajax, violent clashes broke out. Victims of the violence included Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, an Arab taxi driver, and pro-Palestinian protestors.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reliable sources describe the events as primarily targeting Israelis, and your edit removed that. This proposal seeks to imply both sides were subjected to the same violence. Changing some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were targeted in a series of attacks. to violent clashes broke out. Victims of the violence included Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, an Arab taxi driver, and pro-Palestinian protestors. isn't good. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Early reporting definitely focused primarily on the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans as victims—as it should have done—but there has been a notable shift in reporting since then—especially as the Maccabi fans' anti-Palestinianism has also been increasingly covered and videos which were initially described as one thing have been shown to be something different.

Obviously, there are still more sources framing it in terms of the initial coverage, but there's always more coverage when details are freshly emerging as opposed to when things have settled down and opinions on what happened settle/become clearer. Older articles also aren't updated and often aren't retracted when new details emerge or when information changes, so 20 outdated articles shouldn't necessarily override 5 newer articles which have more recent and in-depth information.

I think VR's suggestions are mostly fine, but I think what's needed is recognition of proportionality. So, something like this might be better:

"On 7 November 2024, following a UEFA Europa League football match in Amsterdam between Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv and Dutch club AFC Ajax, tensions over the Israel–Hamas war escalated to violence. Most of the targets of the violence were Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, but an Arab taxi driver and pro-Palestinian protestors were also targeted." Lewisguile (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That version seems OK to me, and addresses the false balance in VR's version while still being concise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll make those changes now. I was working on the chronology in the second paragraph anyway, as it currently reads as if the calls for violence spread after the match, rather than before it. Lewisguile (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. See what you think. Lewisguile (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any sense of the number of Maccabi fans and pro-Palestinian protesters attacked? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There's mention of 20-30 Maccabi fans lightly injured, with 5 hospitalised. I can only find reference to one Amsterdam taxi driver being attacked by comparison. Do you have any more specific figures? Lewisguile (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to find it. But we need to have some basis for the claim "most of the targets were". Certainly 20-30 vs 1 cab driver would merit the phrase "most of the targets were", but that ignores the potential numbers of pro-Palestinian protesters targeted.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for that to be changed back if we can get some numbers on pro-Palestinian and Amsterdammer casualties. It's all a bit vague about how many were injured. Lewisguile (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The coverage is shifting as facts are uncovered. For example, the Amsterdam mayor's report now says injustice has been done to both Jews in our city as well as people of minorities who sympathise with the Palestinians.[51] The NBC subtitle for example says “Hit and run” attacks on Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters in Amsterdam and inflammatory and violent acts by some of the Israeli fans shocked and dismayed observers around the world.[52] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Media reporting section highlights religion of some commentators - inappropriately?

The media reporting section seems to deviate from Wikipedia practice to point out that Asa Winstanley is Jewish. As an aside, the cited source (the venerable Express Tribune of Pakistan) doesn't even make the claim that Winstanley is Jewish, just that he is "of Jewish origin". If someone could provide a reliable source for Winstanley's circumcision or bar mitzva, I'm sure the article would be much improved. In the very next line, we find that "Australian news site Crikey ran an article from Jewish Council of Australia founder Sarah Schwartz". While I applaud editors' enthusiasm to go to the ends of the earth to highlight Jewish voices, it may be unfair to those gentiles who also want to criticise Sky News' video editing choices and are currently so blatantly and explicitly excluded from doing so.

Meanwhile, Sky News editing a video merits quite extensive coverage in our article, yet somehow fails to mention Sky's own explanation for the change, which is repeated in numerous sources a little closer to home than the commentaries we choose to spotlight. Perhaps this section needs some attention? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

<<deleted due to WP:ARBECR>>

I think you'll find that the labelling of Annet de Graaf's footage is already covered, exhaustively, in this section. One would think that the media reporting of the Amsterdam attacks is entirely composed of Jewish people criticising Sky News and people commenting on the use or misuse of Annet de Graaf's footage. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't assign identities based on demands for invasive "proof", either. We go with what RSes state or their own words if necessary. If RSes don't describe person x as Jewish, then we shouldn't. No other tests necessary. If Asa Winstanley or anyone else isn't described as Jewish, feel free to remove that word from the relevant description. Lewisguile (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile in a sense you're correct, although it's questionable whether we should mention religion even if it does appear in the source which quotes Winstanley. Might nationality, political affiliation, or employment by particular agency or group be more informative?

But I started the section because this habit of highlighting the (purported?) Jewish identity of commentators who will justify, contextualise, or explain away anti-Semitic violence seems to be a sign of pernicious, unhealthy editing practices. Why mention Asa Winstanley's opinion, or Schwartz's, at all? Samuelshraga (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well you may be right on that point, but as this is subject to contentious topics rules, we're supposed to assume good faith. Luckily, I think anyone adding information in bad faith will be including details that aren't backed up by RSes and/or which are otherwise WP:UNDUE, so it can be removed on that basis.

I think if there's a quote in the Responses section, it could be valid to mention if a source is a Jewish person in Amsterdam, as it potentially provides relevancy (especially if the sources also list that detail about someone). Similarly, in the Israeli subsection, it's probably relevant to clarify someone is Israeli-American. But there should be balance around it, so we're not just using this stuff to, as you say, justify certain opinions (or minimise opinions). The counterargument is that when we don't establish relevancy, people might remove useful quotes as irrelevant.

At least one of the quotes you're talking about was specifically discussed in prior threads, where people wanted to reflect civil society as well as the commentariat. Winstanley's comments are probably relevant for the discussion of misreporting, but I suspect he can be switched for someone more notable (e.g., Owen Jones who, even though he's not uncontroversial, has at least made his comments in major RSes like The Observer/Guardian). If I get chance, I'll have a look at that this afternoon. Lewisguile (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The Express Tribune is a reliable source, but probably not a good source for whether a UK commentator is Jewish, and not the most obviously relevant source for opinion on European football or Israel/Palestine.
• Winstanley is a very fringe commentator and so his views are really not noteworthy, whether he's Jewish or not (I don't think he's Jewish, but if he is that's not how he's usually identified when mentioned by RSs - elsewhere I see "pro-Palestinian journalist", "Electronic itifada journalist","anti-Israel activist", "pro-Jeremy Corbyn writer" or "activist, agenda journalist".
• Owen Jones is more notable than Schwartz or Winstanley, but I don't see why he's noteworthy here unless RSs cite him.
• The Schwartz piece is good, so I'd like it to be included, but unfortunately I don't see any evidence it's noteworthy. Her Jewish Council of Australia is not exactly what it sounds like; it's a fairly fringe, new anti-Zionist group I believe.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I missed this before seeing your edits, but it seems we're largely in agreement anyway. I agree re Winstanley and Jones is already in there, so we don't need to add any more from him. Schwartz already says something similar to Winstanley but is more articulate than he is, and probably more relevant. I kept her in simply because she expresses some of the criticism of Sky News that was rather widespread a few days ago. So I think we have a tentative consensus here? Lewisguile (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli user removing that police chief of Amsterdam stating that the "the Israelis started the riots."

An Israeli user has removed from the article that the police chief of Amsterdam acknowledged that the "the Israelis started the riots." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2024_Amsterdam_attacks&diff=1257323281&oldid=1257322670 The user also removed information from an interviewed Israeli women.

Its published by a reliable source, so there is no doubt of its accuracy. This must be restored to the article. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the user in question. Not sure if I've identified myself as Israeli, but what the hell, who cares about other editors' nationalities right? On the material, the things I removed were cited to a source clearly marked as an opinion piece.

Wikipedia policy on reliable sources at: Wikipedia:NEWSOPED says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". Samuelshraga (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The texts you removed are not statements from the author of the opinion piece, they are statements from the police chief of Amsterdam and an interviewed Israeli women, only published within the op ed, and in both these two cases they were properly attributed to each person who said it and not presented as a "fact". So they were not violating Wikipedia policy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliability includes reliability of quotes. Wikipedia policy says that opinion pieces are not reliable except for statements attributed to the author of the opinion piece. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki policy says "are rarely reliable for statements of fact", the texts you removed are not "statements of fact" but quotes attributed to the person that said it. The policy section you linked to is about opinions and statements from the author of the opinion piece, the texts you removed is neither of those. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces (especially in weak sources such as YNet) are NOT reliable sources for facts about third parties.

The police chief's words would be noteworthy, but no other source has quoted the police chief in this way. I suspect it's a paraphrase framed as a quote, and may have suffered from going back and forth between

Dutch, Hebrew and English. Let's use actual solid news sources for what he said.

The random unnamed "an Israeli woman" quoted in the opinion piece does not seem noteworthy.

Again her words in English don't appear elsewhere, so the original account was presumably in Hebrew so hard to find. If we mention her statement, we'd have to say something like "According to an opinion piece by Smadar Perry, writing in YNet, an Israeli woman who arrived in Amsterdam said---".

Finally, even if the words were due, they wouldn't be due enough to be repeated verbatim in two different sections so that edit by Samuelshraga also seems correct.

In short, the article is better without this content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that follows exactly, but in any case, if the information is verifiable it'll be in another article that the original editor can find and add in instead. Personally, those additions seem WP:UNDUE anyway, and could probably be moved or removed on that basis. They could be put in the Responses section, for example, but that section is already quite long, so I expect they'll be challenged either way. Lewisguile (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just as a further aside, the same opinion piece includes: "The outrageous antisemitic attack in Amsterdam was meticulously planned by its Muslim population beforehand, which Dutch officials and police ignored". Is your claim that this is all "published by a reliable source, so there is no doubt of its accuracy"? Samuelshraga (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It is really, really problematic to draw attention to an editor's nationality or ethnicity in this way Supreme Deliciousness. I think you should strike your comment and apologise. The same would be the case if someone said something like "Palestinian user does x" or "Muslim user does y". If you have a policy-based objections to the edit, fair enough: raise these rather than the identity of the editor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW, @Bobfrombrockley, I think we were both editing the Media reporting subsection at the same time to resolve this and related issues. I got the usual "do you want to resolve this manually?" prompt, but I didn't see you'd moved the Schwartz quote down. Anyway, I've tried to put something closer to what you had, but I've ended up leaving Schwartz with the Sky News paragraph because it was short enough and followed on from that subject. I also added a tiny bit more of her quote because the comments about misinformation increasing antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism seems very relevant given the topic. Winstanley is still out and Owen Jones' comment is still trimmed. Let me know if any of that is intolerable to you and I can edit it again so you don't need revert. Lewisguile (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

all cool BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bobfrombrockley. I'm sure @Supreme Deliciousness is themself Israeli and was so inspired with camaraderie and fellow-feeling from looking at my edits that they simply assumed that I shared their nationality. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reactions Other Countries

@BePrepared1907 has added a list of responses/reactions from other countries. This information was agreed that will be no included (it was included and we agreed to remove), as the reactions section for many editors is already too long. On the other side, if we decide to include a response in Other Countries the list should include also countries different than Europe main countries and USA/UK to have a good description of the international responses. As I already said it was agreed that it will be removed so I will revert the addition of @BePrepared1907 but I am happy to discuss with @BePrepared1907 and other editors if agreed. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. It's not needed. Lewisguile (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Which individuals' reactions are WP:DUE

The people whose reactions to the attacks themselves, and to the media coverage, seem to be chosen in a slightly haphazard - not to say skewed - fashion. Dutch public figures cited in the Netherlands part of the response section include on the one hand: the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister, leader of the VVD, the King, the leader of the PVV and the mayor of Amsterdam. On the other hand, an MP for DENK, with its three parliamentary seats, and a councilor for BIJ1 - are these considered mainstream Dutch political parties? Along with a Jewish community organiser who seems pretty anonymous.

One might think that these latter viewpoints have been included not for their prominence or influence, but because somebody really finds it cathartic to see references to Israeli victims of explicitly anti-Semitic violence as "scum on genocide leave", or lines like "those Jews were also violent hooligans".

The problem extends beyond this section of course, but it seems like a good place to start. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed this previously (multiple times, in fact). Yes, the politicians and king were included, but that shouldn't be the limit. Others were included either as local sources and to cover the responses of civil society. Leaving out local residents would itself be problematic.

If you have specific issues with specific quotes, let's go through them one by one and we can discuss them (note that I'm clocking off now so won't respond until the morning, so apologies in advance for any delayed responses).

And can we please, please, please stop it with the bad faith comments and digs at other editors' motives? It's enough to say the comments appear to be skewed. There's no need to make inflammatory comments as well. Remember, Wikipedia is not a forum. Lewisguile (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was the person who included the MP for DENK, and I have added the references to the missing BIJ1 councillor. I didn't add the BIJ1 councillor just the references and the text agreeing with them as a solution to some erroneous references. I do not judge the relevance of this councillor, I just fixed a technical error. As for the DENK deputy, I included precisely the links to his page and to the DENK page, so that the reader can judge for himself the relevance of the assessment (and actually before adding this I checked that he has a page in wikipedia in english as a filter, and he has). I understand your (@talk) point of view, but in the Netherlands DENK represents precisely the immigrant population in the Netherlands, so from the perspective of the Dutch communities involved in the facts it is a relevant voice. Anyway, most of the responses from Dutch politicians are comments from the official (national and local) government, so one single comment from another voice seems reasonable. As for your assertion about the underlying hidden reasons of the editors, I think it goes nowhere in the first place because references have been given, and links to his page and his political party so everything is open. On the other hand why hide this opinion. Of course this can be debated to try to reach a consensus. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the "Jewish community organised who seems pretty anonymous" I don't know exactly to what you are referring. If it is about the Kristallnacht commemoration is is an important local event in Amsterdam and it is not only involving this NGO but also an international NGO. It has been a relevant thing in Netherlands: I gave several references to newspapers (in Netherlands and Internationals) plus other international references to these NGO. It is just your opinion about "pretty anonymous", the number of references may say other thing. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE and the inclusion of "Erev Rav"'s statements

The "Aftermath" section includes the line that "The organisations Erev Rav and the Stop Racism and Fascism Platform cancelled a local Kristallnacht commemoration due to the 'violent' Maccabi supporters and the municipality's inadequate response to the events" as well as other quotes attributed to the organization. Erev Rav does not appear to be a notable organization; the Wikipedia entry for the term (as linked) does not even reference them. Their website, https://erevrav.nl/, has no content except to direct people to their Twitter and Instagram -- it does not even provide information for how to join the organization. The Twitter hasn't been updated in months and the Instagram was sporadically used until the November 7 attacks. The press appears to be giving the organization undue weight and this Wikipedia entry shouldn't fall into the same trap. I suggest removing any mention to this organization and request that someone with 30/500 access make the appropriate changes. DNL (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to copy part of my answer again but this was already discussed:

(1) Times of Israel in the topic of the article:

(2) NL times in the topic of the article:

(3) NH news (Dutch) in the topic of the article:

(4) DailySabah in the topic of the article:

(5) WNL.nl news and radio channel in the topic of the article:

(6) oneworld.nl cultural newspaper:

(7) NOS.nl news (Dutch news) in the topic of the article:

(8) NRC.nl news in the topic of the article:

(9) Welingelichtekringen (local dutch news paper)

(10) Other reference to the topic of the article.

As can be seen the specific event for which it is included has been cited in international and national (Dutch) newspapers, and this only by searching for Erev Rav, if we increase this search by including the Stop Racism and Fascism Platform the number of references may increase. As already mentioned, the Kristallnacht commemoration has already been mentioned 6 times in other contexts of the article, so it is reasonable to explain to the readers that one of the consequences of the events described in the article has been the cancellation of the Kristallnacht commemoration. Erev Rav and the Stop Racism and Fascism Platform were the two NGOs that organised it, and the statements are from both organisations jointly. Is your suggestion to remove Erev Rav name and only keep the international NGO Stop Racism and Fascism Platform? There is also a series of interviews with them about the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Amsterdam, in which they are involved. So it seems that NGOs are present in Amsterdam, where the events took place. I just want to mention that this information has been added in good faith, after researching and seeing that the information reported has been widely covered in the media. There are no ulterior motives, it was just journalistic work. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024 Paris attacks

Is there a new page for the Israeli football riots that happened in Paris this week (11/13) or do we expand this one and change the name? Source, source, source. Kire1975 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)