Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No mention of antisemitism in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

This

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

reads much less neutral then this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you... not read what I wrote?

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

"A taxi driver was also assaulted"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure of “Response” section

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

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

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

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

Responses sections

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

To cite some actions that can be performed:

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

2- Summarizing the statements by the heads of governments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but you asked for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mairav Zonszein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Hamas response be moved under 'Palestine'?

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

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

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

False reporting and from Reliable sources

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

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

Small group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much detail about Israel-Palestine conflict

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested simplification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarding the sources for the claims of your contribution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to run through these with you again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1RR violations

I have just noticed that Techiya1925 has seemingly performed no less than [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] ten 1RR violations within 24 hours. Are there any admins editing here? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

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

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

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Image added

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

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

Merge from section on AFC Ajax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got it.

I'm leaving the arrest count alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reports of being pre-planned in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree. According to the report in the UK Telegraph[24], attacks on the Jewish football fans were planned in advance and co-ordinated using WhatsApp and Telegram. The Telegraph has seen messages from a group chat called Buurthuis, a Dutch word for a type of community centre, which were posted on Wednesday, the day before the match. One message says: “Tomorrow after the game, at night, part 2 of the Jew Hunt. Andre🚐 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It says here that Mossad[25] warned of a potential threat to Israelis and Jews. Not general tensions. They were requesting an immediate and significant increase in security for Israelis near the soccer stadium Andre🚐 10:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Butterscotch Beluga Copy/pasted straight from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 8-11

Many sources appear to describe the attacks on November 11th as a continuation of the ongoing unrest, not the "aftermath".[26][27] Likewise, WikipediaNummer1 describes continuing violence. We should consider moving some of the content reflecting the violence on November 11th from "aftermath" to the "events" section. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive coverage of responses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am proposing the following removals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro is biased

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

---

When I start to read the article "The events took place amid heightened tensions related to the Israel–Hamas war, and 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. Some Maccabi fans had also interrupted a minute of silence for the victims of the 2024 Spanish floods with chanting and whistles before the match." It gives me impression that the jews went to netherlands to look for trouble. But in reality, there was match between Israeli and Netherlands teams. Pro-Hamas people were there to provoke the jews. Just because the Maccabi fans respond to the provocations you try to make them look quilty. It so weird. 2A00:807:E5:DD7E:FD05:16A2:89DF:BEDA (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"They" didn't make them "look" anything -the editors reported what reliable sources say. RSes indicate that Israeli fans were involved in instigating some of this, but they were also targeted by antisemitic groups. Why's that so hard to imagine? Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, first time editor. Kire1975 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

biased account.

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

---

The pro-Israel bias in this account is remarkable. The filming done by Dutch photographer Annet de Graaf which was then co-opted by Sky News and other major media sources and turned on its head needs more attention. 38.145.154.243 (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Andy, what do you think needs adding and where? Although WP:ARBECR means the OP shouldn't engage in this discussion except to request specific edits, you certainly can. Lewisguile (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is now adequately covered in the Aftermath#Media reporting section. Let me know if you think this needs further discussion? Lewisguile (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though this isn't in the correct format, the content you mention is now covered in the article. Thanks. Lewisguile (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reactions from journalists and academia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No problem. It is fine. Have a nice day. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a large amount of commentary from commentators on this incident and no need to list it all. Hasan's views are not noteworthy. I would need convincing that Swain's are. Lipstadt's view is noteworthy, however, as (a) she represents the US government, (b) she is an expert on one of the matters at hand, antisemitism, and (c) more than one RS has reported her comments and therefore deemed it noteworthy per DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Redundant Sentences in the Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also agree. Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So we agree to cut the first sentence and merge the paragraph? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I and a couple others do at least. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let's cut and merge. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the cut and merge was already done. This looks much better. Though I'm not sure about the conjunction "and" between the Israel–Hamas bit and the Maccabi fans. It could maybe be clarified as "...amid heightened tensions related to the Israel–Hamas war in the city, where some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had been filmed..." But I'll leave that for others to decide. Lewisguile (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact identity ... that's a red herring, because their "exact identity" is irrelevant to the fact that they are Israeli fans.

The photographer has no more insight.. your personal opinion is contradicted by the cited source (The video by De Graaf actually shows supporters of the Israeli soccer club Maccabi Tel Aviv attacking locals around Amsterdam Central Station.... Another video by a young Dutch reporter, Ome Bender, supports De Graaf's version because it shows the same violent scenes from a different angle.) and other reliable sources that I cited below (see #Fake news section). M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The NYT has since changed their stance. A recent report uses the video with de Graaf's description. The The Jewish Chronicle also uses it as evidence of Maccabis attacking Amsterdammers. Check Media reporting for updated text and multiple RSes. Lewisguile (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, then. Scharb (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Scharb I have removed your comment as a WP:BLP violation. @M.Bitton I have removed yours, since it repeated the unsourced claim (which would now seem to be incorrect). Please can we nip this in the bud now as per WP:NOTAFORUM? The issue should be settled, per my previous post, since the NYT, The Jewish Chronicle and others now say the video shows what the photographer said it shows. Lewisguile (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: I quoted what Scharb said and asked them to substantiate their claim. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I know. I just wanted to flag why I'd removed yours as well. I appreciate you weren't making the claim. Lewisguile (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

On 8 November 2024, the Dutch Minister for Security and Justice, Mr David Van Weel, heard of the outbreak of antisemitic violence on Amsterdam streets after emerging from a speaking engagement at an 86th Anniversary commemoration for Kristallnacht (also called "The Night of Broken Glass" and "The November Pogrom"). In 1938, the Nazi Party's Sturmabteilung (SA) and Schutzstaffel (SS) enacted a violent riot (Pogrom) against Jewish people.

David van Weel made the following comment on his X (social media) account:

"Last night I spoke at the commemoration of Kristallnacht about the huge increase in anti-Semitism in NL. Not even 3 hours later barbarians on scooters are riding through our capital city hunting Israelis and Jews. Horrible and unacceptable! We are going to track them down and punish them"

 [[]] ANNEB24 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please reformat your request in the format of "change X to y". E.g., "In the Response section, after the comment by the mayor of Amsterdam, add..." Note that this section is currently in the process of being trimmed anyway, so it may be worth coming back in a day or so, after that has been actioned. Lewisguile (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede edits

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

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

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

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

Fake news

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

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

The video by De Graaf actually shows supporters of the Israeli soccer club Maccabi Tel Aviv attacking locals around Amsterdam Central Station. It, therefore, does not show pro-Palestinians chasing Israelis, as has been falsely claimed by several media outlets, but instead Israeli soccer fans attacking locals and pro-Palestinian soccer fans. ” — Rachel Baig, Fact check: Amsterdam video doesn't show attack on Israelis

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

The Canary (website) and The New Arab are not RS for facts. The photographer is also highly partisan-- the photographer does not have final say in the analysis of the video evidence she filmed.

Note that major RS like WSJ and NYT haven't honored the photographer's request to rescind their description and honor hers. Video evidence is out of the hands of the person who filmed it.

No other RS mentions this alternative angle video, which has been removed, and hasn't been confirmed by multiple RS. Scharb (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's your irrelevant opinion. What those RS are stating is an undisputed fact.

WSJ and NYT haven't honored the photographer's request to rescind their description and honor hers that says more about them than her.

No other RS mentions this alternative angle video it doesn't matter one bit: the misinformation is well sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, the Canary is generally unreliable Andre🚐 02:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't change a thing. The fact is repeated in other reliable sources (that incidentally are more reliable than the so-called reliable ones that shamelessly misrepresented a video). M.Bitton (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's not a fact in the case of the New Arab but an WP:RSOPINION by their editorial board, see the "staff" byline. Andre🚐 02:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's your irrelevant opinion, because this an undisputed fact that is presented as such (Fact check). M.Bitton (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that link is better, but reading it, the plot thickens further, stating, The exact identity of the men in the video remains unclear. A spokeswoman for the Amsterdam police said in an interview with DW that the video taken by the Dutch photographer is the subject of an ongoing investigation. At present, the police cannot provide any information about the identity of the perpetrators seen in the video. I do think this link is a reliable enough source on the face of it and I don't have a reason to believe otherwise. It also links to [28]. It sounds like one of the videos was shown in the wrong context but when reliable sources disagree, we need to show that with balance & attribution as opposed to choosing the ones we think are right. Andre🚐 02:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

like I said previously, their "exact identity" is irrelevant to the fact that they are Maccabi fans (that's how the same source describes them in its own voice). There is no dispute here: it's her video, she knows what she filmed and what has been misrepresented by those who used it inappropriately. M.Bitton (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that The Canary absolutely is NOT a reliable source and should never be used for this kind of contentious thing. The New Arab IS a reliable source and the fact an article is written by unnamed staff is reason to see it as the editorially vetted position of the paper and not as an opinion piece so increases its reliability. This may be academic, as we have better sources too below, but I didn't want to leave this as it was. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What's a 'fact' and which 'reliable sources' are reporting it? The sources you've provided here are dubious. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Does this look dubious to you? What about this one? M.Bitton (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Dubious and lonely. Scharb (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we talking about the reliable sources that I cited or about something else? M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I know De Graaf's video has been making rounds, but what's it supposed to prove exactly? That the Israelis instigated some of it and so there was no targeting of Jews going on? Most MSM reports I've read describe what happened as a premeditated, coordinated attack on Jews that was planned on the internet before the match. Even Uber is conducting an investigation as it appears some of their drivers were involved. I have no doubt the Israeli fans weren't all innocent angels, but to describe MSM reports as "disinformation" seems far-fetched. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It proves that her video (showing Maccabi fans attacking people) has been misrepresented by some sources (that we describe as reliable). It's a big deal. M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it's a lot of sources that we describe as reliable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the sad bit. M.Bitton (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

But isn't it also the case that they (your sources) are using the purported misrepresentation of this one video to make even broader claims about the nature of these attacks? Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The misinformation is all I'm interested in. M.Bitton (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, because the first link has a caption up that reads "Israeli soccer fans were chased and beaten in Amsterdam in what Israeli and Dutch leaders called antisemitic attacks," and then next to that it says FALSE. It's the idea that this didn't happen at all that I find a hard pill to swallow. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing something else (the intent behind what has been published), while all I'm interested in is presenting the published fact about the misinformation (the readers can draw their own conclusion). M.Bitton (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well the mischaracterization of this particular video is mentioned in the article. I don't have a problem with this, although it'd be nice to get better sources. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP WP:RSPISNOT

• a list of pre-approved sources that can be always used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing
• a list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight

Galdrack (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton The misuse of the Annet de Graaf video has been in the article for several days, and with better sources (Deutsche Welle, and the ARD German public broadcaster ARD acknowledged the error and published a correction). Another RS documenting this is Berliner Zeitung: [29]. I'll add that. Andreas JN466 10:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also used and correctly described in articles by the NYT and Jewish Chronicle, supporting de Graaf's claims. I've updated the Media reporting section accordingly. There are now too many citations, but I believe this is probably justified given the contentious nature of the issue and confusion around what it shows. Lewisguile (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the NYT piece and agree this should be well-cited. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sky News

While the NYT has issued a correction, Sky News edited a video it posted earlier to hide the truth. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the first version of the video names the people in the video as Maccabi fans whereas the second version just says "hooded men", which is presumably the kind of correction they would make if they became uncertain about the men's identity and unwilling to fan the flames by prematurely identifying them as one side or the other? It's not "hiding the truth" if they didn't know what the truth was at the time. Correcting to a more hedged claim is exactly the behaviour we would like to see from reliable sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Events of the 8-10th November not covered

@LewisGuile, you reverted as part of a much bigger trimming of the article two sentences I'd just added on harassment of Jews on the city streets on the nights following the riot. This was in the November 2024 Amsterdam attacks#Further unrest subsection. As far as I can tell, the anti-Semitic harassment is not covered anywhere else in the article, is clearly directly relevant to the topic, and two gold-standard RS sources were provided. If there was a particular reason to exclude the content, please share so we can discuss it here. Otherwise, please re-add. (Also just to note that I appreciate that condensing a bloated article like this one is a lot of work, and that there are a lot of content decisions to be made quickly when doing it. I just think this one went astray). Samuelshraga (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I missed it! I evidently spent too long making my edits and didn't see yours. I'm sorry about that and will restore the text now.Lewisguile (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I haven't gone through all your edits, but I think it's great that you took the initiative to try and drain the bloated swamp that this article has become. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It hasn't triggered an edit war yet, so I'm cautiously optimistic. Lewisguile (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Started by a non extendedconfirmed editor in violation of the WP:ARBECR restriction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) The mention is fair enough. This was widely reported in The Netherlands as well as internationally. Here e.g. in The Guardian [30], Jakarta Post [31], The New Arab [32], La Presse (Canada) [33], Le Devoir [34] etc. Andreas JN466 23:36, 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)

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)

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)

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 [35]. 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" [36] 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)

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 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)