Jump to content

Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam riots: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 598: Line 598:
:@[[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]], I've put "all minority groups" in speech marks from the quote above. You should probably remove the "attribution needed" tag now, unless you can cite another policy-based reason for why you still think this isn't attributed (despite the multiple sources). [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 11:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]], I've put "all minority groups" in speech marks from the quote above. You should probably remove the "attribution needed" tag now, unless you can cite another policy-based reason for why you still think this isn't attributed (despite the multiple sources). [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 11:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Again, 'quote needed' is not an available template. You can offer an appropriate substitute, or just add the quote that you keep saying is there "verbatim". [[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] ([[User talk:Kire1975|talk]]) 12:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Again, 'quote needed' is not an available template. You can offer an appropriate substitute, or just add the quote that you keep saying is there "verbatim". [[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] ([[User talk:Kire1975|talk]]) 12:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I literally have, as I just explained. So if there's now a direct quote, you're agreeing that we can remove the tag? [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 12:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== There is no Dutch translation for this page. ==
== There is no Dutch translation for this page. ==

Revision as of 12:09, 27 November 2024

Requested move 9 November 2024

November 2024 Amsterdam attacks → 2024 Amsterdam football riot or 2024 Amsterdam riot – There is no single WP:COMMONNAME, so we must rely on WP:NDESC. "Riot" is most WP:CONSISTENT with most articles at Category:Association football hooliganism (1999 Rotterdam riots, 2008 UEFA Cup final riots, Querétaro–Atlas riot etc). "Riot" also more inclusively captures property damage and other acts of hooliganism that took place, which can't be described as "attacks". The word "football" or "soccer" in the title is necessary as that is the most recognizable aspect of this event. All the clashes centered around the football fans. "November" is unnecessarily WP:OVERPRECISE. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've edited the proposal to also include 2024 Amsterdam riot as a possible title, given many support moving to "riot" but not necessarily to include "football".VR (Please ping on reply) 17:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Keep as-is or change to "Antisemitic attacks".
Renaming to include football is not NPOV, contradicting the POV of involved parties including Maccabi's owner[1], and downplays the extremism of the attacks which really had nothing to do with the game or any hooliganism, and everything to do with prejudice against the presence of Israelis and Jews.
Renaming it to include football carries misleading implications and minimizes the events. Unlike most football related incidents,[2] the violence[3] was not done spontaneously by supporters of either team but in a preplanned[4] mob coordinated on social media[5] that targeted Israelis and Jews while they were returning from the game.[6][7] Scharb (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Scharb (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the main article:
A statement released by the Amsterdam authorities four days after the riots described the causes as "a poisonous cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior and anger about the war in Palestine and Israel and other countries in the Middle East", placing blame both on the antisemitism of those who attacked Maccabi fans and the provocations and violence of Israeli hooligans.
This article is about provocations and violence by football hooligans and the events that followed. Calling it “attacks” gives the impression this was unprompted or one-sided. “Riots” more accurately describes the events. Yoshuawuyts (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that riot is a better description as it more closely encompasses the individual aspects of this page, including vandalism, threats, & harassment. I also agree that WP:CONSISTENT should apply here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, the most common reference is attacks not a riot. Andre🚐 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is "no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources". Certainly not "November 2024 Amsterdam attacks".VR (Please ping on reply) 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources refer to it as "Amsterdam attacks." Andre🚐 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I think "football riots" might be misleading, because it was not really related to the football itself. I mostly focus on Dutch media coverage: "Riots" ("rellen") appears to be pretty common[1][2][3] "Attacks" ("aanvallen") not so much as far as I can find, although obviously more specific incidents are described as attacks. Many sources generally refer to it as "Violence" ("Geweld"), which could also be an option. But based on Dutch sources, I would go for "riots" here. November might be needed in the title however, because I remember other incidents of violence earlier this year (although far less than this). Dajasj (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dajasj Thanks for providing those sources. As for disambiguating by November, do those other events already have an article on wikipedia, or have a reasonable chance of having an article? If not, then we don't need to disambiguate.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, that'a true Dajasj (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think "attacks" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME per Andre. But also, "riot" doesn't really capture the attacks conducted by several small groups, spread across the area, acting in coordination. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The attacks were primarily performed by pro-Palestinian protestors, not football fans. Both Ajax and Maccabi are primarily associated with Judaism, and the attacks were performed on Israelis because they were Israelis, not because of the football club they chose to support. If we're going by WP:NDESC, the definition of football hooliganism says it constitutes violence and other destructive behaviors perpetrated by spectators at association football events. Making the title consistent with other examples of football hooliganism falsely implies that it was primarily Maccabi fans rioting after the football game.
It's difficult to comment on what WP:COMMONNAME is because nobody has provided English-language sources. However, Google Trends indicates that "attack" is consistently more common than "riot".[4] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose football riot would imply this was football-related violence which it certainly was not, it was ethno-political violence that happened to involve one set of particular fans. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and for greater accuracy as 'riots' seems more fitting and encompassing.
Edit: to clarify, I support the use of 'riot', or alternatively 'clashes', but am neutral to the inclusion/exclusion of 'football' Mason7512 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the COMMONNAME? Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, although it is hard to precisely and objectively measure. Here is a global Google search term comparison which seems to show 'riot' is used more: [5] Mason7512 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the correct spelling though. Check the above comment by Chess. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, the stand alone Amsterdam is misspelled (my apologies), but the two relevant search terms are spelled correctly, are they not? Mason7512 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison by Chess ([6]) is not plural. so i made a 4-way comparsion ([7]) and it shows that 'riots' is slightly more popular than 'attack'. Mason7512 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly shows that attack is more widely used in English-speaking countries. This also doesn't include only reliable sources. That is a graph of search term interest, and not usage in sources.Andre🚐 02:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it clearly shows that riots is more widely used. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Race riots" might be the best term as it explains why the riot occurred. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess , I believe "Race riot" is a great way to explain what happened (Ex.: Tulsa race massacre); I believe it is too early to change the title of the wiki. Waiting will allow more time for info to become public.
Sroth0616 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacing "attacks" with "riots" as that is the Common name (as demonstrated by Mason7512). The comparison is even clearer when quotes are used and all terms are compared (see 1 and 2). M.Bitton (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't look at the plurals-only version; why exclude "Amsterdam attack" which is more prevalent than "Amsterdam riot"? I'm also not sure we should use phrase searches (quotes), excluding a variety of minor variations, such as "Attack in Amsterdam" which is more prevalent than "Riot in Amsterdam".
    Moreover, Google Trends is at best a rough proxy for prevalence in secondary coverage, which is what ultimately determines WP:COMMONNAMEs. Here I think it's best to look at secondary coverage directly. Even if we specifically search for articles containing "Amsterdam riot", most such articles still use "attack" more than "riot". — xDanielx T/C\R 16:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained why "Amsterdam riots" is the WP:COMMONNAME and gave the relevant links to support it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should also consider not having a WP:POVNAME. "Amsterdam attacks" implies one side was doing all the attacking, while we do have RS that point out both sides partook in the clashes. Thus something like "riot" or "clashes" is more neutral. Sources say,
    • "police chief Peter Holla told reporters that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had attacked a taxi driver and burned a Palestinian flag"[8][9]
    • "Travelling fans verbally abuse locals and tear down Palestine flags before fights break out with Dutch youth"[10] VR (Please ping on reply) 04:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about "race riots"? It's a more accurate descriptor than "football riot". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's more accurate than "football riots", as it wasn't primarily between football fans. Lewisguile (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite like "clashes", since the BBC and a few other websites have used it as a more neutral term that could appeal to those who dislike "riots". Lewisguile (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support replacing "attacks" with "riot" or "riots", as well as ditching "November" from the title as no disambiguator is needed. Like VR said above, "attack" implies this was a one-sided attack, which it wasn't, and it could also be conflated with a terrorist attack such as Paris 2015. This was much closer to a football riot with political motives than an "attack", and RS support this. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a support of adding "football riot", or just the word "riot"? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a !vote for "riots" only, but good to be crystal clear. Lewisguile (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the name change to "riot" over "attack". If an option I would support "clashes" over both as it's more for the reasons that @Vice regent has said, as well as @Dajasj mention of the dutch 'geweld' directly translating to 'violence' which is more emblematic of clashes
"attacks" as a name, while appropriate in some cases, such as the Paris attacks of January 2015, (as mentioned by @Icantthinkofausernames) has a high risk of being pov-related in other cases. Bejakyo (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3skandar (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The term ‘Riots’ is more neutral, as it wasn’t only Maccabi fans who were attacked. While they may have suffered the most damage, it’s important to remember that they also provoked the incident by chanting anti-Arab slogans, attacking an Arab taxi driver, and disrespecting the Palestinian flag. All of this happened before the main attack on the Maccabi fans. Therefore, this was a riot where both sides were harmed, not just an attack on Maccabi fans alone. GrabUp - Talk 07:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the word "riot" is much more appropriate than "attack." There's no need to mention "anti-Semitism" in the title, as the event also involved violent acts by soccer fans. Wikiloginproton (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Renaming to "riots" would be preferable to "football riots" as the football match wasn't the inciting event for the violence. "Riots" has been demonstrated to be the more common descriptor used in both English and Dutch media. "Attacks" is also just a poor term for describing a series of clashes perpetrated by two groups against one another. XeCyranium (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article describes instances of violence, assault and car ramming by pro-Palestinians in general and not football hooliganism. There are clear differences between attacks and hooliganism. 178.81.55.110 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Football", Neutral/Oppose on "riots" over "attacks". The idea that football was The word "football" or "soccer" in the title is necessary as that is the most recognizable aspect of this event is ... well, is anyone seriously claiming that what's notable is that the victims were soccer fans, and not that they were Israelis? That their identification as fans of a football team was key, and their nationality incidental? This suggestion is absurd to the point that it shouldn't need to be addressed. I recognise that it would be inconvenient to the preferred narrative of some editors here to highlight the religious identification of the victims (at least in the minds of the attackers, who gave ample evidence that they were targeting the victims as Jews or Israelis interchangeably). Nonetheless, the gaslighting has to stop somewhere, let's draw a line in the sand here at the very least. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli football hooligans were largely the perpetrators, not the victims. — Red XIV (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sport in title but Support changing attacks to riots. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mention of football and of riots; riots has different implications.
Supporting 2024 Amsterdam violence as there was also attacks by the Israeli soccer fans including their vandalizing of a taxi vehicle, which initiated the violence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the name should be 2024 Amsterdam attacks on Israeli soccer fans. More informative and less ambiguous than any other suggestion so far. יוניון ג'ק (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to that - it wasn't a one-way attack and such a title is entirely misleading...
The physical attacks were one-way. If there were absolutely no attacks on the Israelis - the remaining events were not be notable enough to sustain a wiki article. יוניון ג'ק (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were physical attacks by the Israelis as well. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - the maccabi fans didn't help themselves by not behaving well, but they are the ones that were attacked. They were attacked for being Israeli/Jewish. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MaskedSinger Did they not attack an innocent Muslim taxi driver? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Did they? Who says he was innocent? In any event, this is a non sequitur that is besides the point. When there was hard core violence and attacks, it only happened in one direction.
Why don't we do everything we can not to be like all people who misbehaved in Amsterdam and do all we can to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's what I'd love but sadly it doesn't seem to be possible  :( MaskedSinger (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was physical violence in both directions. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this bothsidesism and DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence. The newsworthy thing was that random people were attacked in the street for being Jewish by 500 organized masked men demanding passports.
Racist chants at soccer matches are barely encyclopedically noteworthy. Antisemitic chants[8][9][10][11] at soccer matches certainly never have been, and have never resulted in Jews hunting and beating people in the streets. Scharb (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Scharb (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of a "DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence"? Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bitspectator Not you, I'm referring to the major DARVO attempt by pro-Palestinians on social media, and many editors seem to be have been influenced by it/are perpetuating it. There is never an excuse to demand passports and beat people up if they're from the "wrong country," the videos should horrify every human being, as there is no context that could justify them, and I caution the WP community not to lose sight of that. Like how we report the Holocaust, we don't give equal weight to the deniers or the justifiers. Scharb (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It really seemed like that comment was directed towards me. I said:

There was physical violence in both directions.

and you replied by saying:

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

When you say there is a:

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

should I take that I am one of those editors? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger - Their comment wasn't a non sequitur though. Your comment was based off of the idea there were 1-sided attacks. @Vice regent informed you that that wasn't true.
If you don't know the details you should read up on the incident first & please don't invoke WP:BATTLEGROUND when it's not relevant, it will start more fights then it'll stop. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Prime Minister said "There were “completely unacceptable anti-Semitic attacks on Israelis”,"
Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said the attacks were by "antisemitic hit-and-run squads."
"Antisemitic criminals attacked and assaulted visitors to our city, in hit-and-run actions
And you're like "hold on, they attacked a taxi driver...."
The fact that you can even compare the two is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. As I've said many times since Thursday, the Maccabi fans didn't behave well and they didn't help their own cause but this is no justification for the violence and attacks they were on the receiving end of. When there were attacks on Thursday night it wasn't because that specific fan attacked a taxi driver or did whatever else, it was because they were jewish/israeli. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Israelis also committed physical violence. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they say about them attacking people's homes, pulling down Palestinian flags and chanting "there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left" and "let the IDF fuck the Arabs"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say there were 2 kids at school. A pulled B's hair and called him names. B responded by breaking A's arm, concussing him and sending him to hospital. The 2 can't be compared in any way shape or form. No one is denying the poor behavior of the Israeli fans but their chants and pulling down flags can't be compared what they were on the receiving end of. They were attacked and thus this is what the article should be called. What the Israeli fans did wouldn't be sufficient for an article. What they were on the receiving end of is. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are adults chanting genocidal songs. What kind of human would say such a thing about the Gaza children? M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have added that to the comment above it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of content on Wikipedia would not justify their own articles. Inclusion is not based on that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:BATTLEGROUND means, so please WP:AGF. Investigations are still underway, so we should make no assumptions. The remarks from officials are broad denunciations made quickly after the incident, they are not meaningful comments on the specific order of events, nor are they definitive proof of potential motives. There is evidence this was not one-sided & that is important to consider.
"In addition to the many images of violence against Israelis in the center of Amsterdam, videos have also emerged showing Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters misbehaving in the city. These images make it clear that the supporters not only shouted anti-Arab and racist slogans and pulled a Palestinian flag from a window before the match, but were also violent after the match."
"A taxi driver was also assaulted, after which a group of taxi drivers sought confrontation with the hooligans." (Emphasis mine)
"There are also images circulating showing hooligans beating a taxi with an iron chain and kicking a driver. After that assault, a group of taxi drivers chased the supporters into a casino on Max Euweplein." (Emphasis mine)
"Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”." Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When one typically talks about football riots it's between the fans of the two teams in question ie England fans rioted with Germany fans; Arsenal fans rioted with Napoli fans, etc. The fact that Ajax has nothing to do with and no-one is saying those attacking the Israelis were Ajax fans proves this can't be called a football riot. It happened after a football match but the attacks had nothing to do with football. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you add your bolded comment to your !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would leave football out for that reason. ETA: Dutch sources seem to mention Ajax and a Turkish team being involved as well, so football riots may be acceptable. Lewisguile (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this was not primarily a sports riot, it was an attack on people for their ethnicity. Qualiesin (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support riot. Football isn't needed and could be misleading. Although this did include attacks, it is more accurate to say riots, since that also covers property damage, chanting, etc. It also has the benefit of being slightly more common according to Ngrams above, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. I'm neutral on the date, since WP:NCWWW does suggest we usually use it (but 2024 may indeed be sufficient, if there haven't been any other riots in Amsterdam this year). Lewisguile (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I could support football riots, as multiple sources indicate that multiple football teams' fans were likely involved, including fans of Ajax, Maccabi, and Fenerbahce (a Turkish team). This is especially true of Dutch coverage. Lewisguile (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2024 Amsterdam football riot. The violence was initiated by and very much associated with football hooligans. Isoceles-sai (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It should be renamed to "2024 Amsterdam pogrom". Yilku1 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME. This change would create the false understanding among our readers that all happened was a clash between football fans. What really happened was a targeted attack on Israelis across the city because they were Israelis, hours after the game. That's why the sources predominantly use 'attacks' and not 'riots'. HaOfa (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Vast majority of sources refer to this situation as "attacks."
Sources for "attacks":
PBS: [11]
CBS: [12]
CNN: [13]
NBC: [14]
MSNBC: [15]
AP News: [16]
BBC: [17]
Reuters: [18]
New York Times: [19]
Washington Post: [20]
Politico: [21]
Fox News: [22]
JPost: [23]
LBC: [24]
US News: [25]

Sources for "Riot":
euronews: [26] - note that they include today's (Nov 12) arson attacks.
Fox News: [27] - they refer to the entire situation as "riots" for multiple days. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just referring to the headlines? A quick search finds "riot" or "rioter" in most of these. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you can find the word "riot" inside the body of the article doesn't make that the common sentiment of the articles. Their headlines all refer to the situation as "attacks." Dazzling4 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:HEADLINES. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the first 7 sources, here are paragraphs from within the first 3 paragraphs where riots or attacks were mentioned. Note that the attackers are sometimes called "rioters" but this does not allow us to characterize the situation as a "riot."
PBS:
Attackers assaulted Israeli fans overnight after a soccer match in Amsterdam, leaving five people hospitalized, Dutch authorities said Friday. Dozens were arrested.
CBS:
Antisemitic rioters "actively sought out Israeli supporters to attack and assault them" after a soccer match in Amsterdam, authorities in the Netherlands said Friday, with police reporting five people hospitalized and dozens detained after a night of violence that the mayor said had shamed the city.
CNN:
Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said criminals on scooters searched the city in search of Maccabi supporters in “hit-and-run” attacks.
NBC:
Roving gangs on scooters attacked and beat Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam, the Dutch capital, overnight in an outburst of what authorities called antisemitic violence.
MSNBC:
The violence, in which Maccabi fans were chased down and attacked, resulted in the arrest of 62 people by police and the declaration of a three-day ban on protests in the city.
AP News:
Israeli fans were assaulted after a soccer game in Amsterdam by hordes of young people apparently riled up by calls on social media to target Jewish people, Dutch authorities said Friday. Five people were treated at hospitals and dozens were arrested after the attacks, which were condemned as antisemitic by authorities in Amsterdam, Israel and across Europe.
BBC:
Israeli football fans have described being attacked by groups of young men in Amsterdam, with some left with injuries including broken noses. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable analysis. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that one of the most commonly used videos in the media to support the term ‘attacks’ on Maccabi fans was in fact the opposite, as the original photographer reported: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HFM_V1rnPA I don't want to say (I don't mean to say) that Maccabi fans were not victims of violence, but (just that) it has been reported that media that used the term attack did so using this video as an argument. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If rioters can't be used to support the term riots, then attackers shouldn't be used to support attacks, surely? Either way, I suspect we will have to do a closer look at changing terminology in recent versus initial reporting to get a proper litmus test on this. Part of the problem is that early journalism is more prolific as papers report on each new detail as it emerges; once new info slows down, so does the coverage. But later articles are often more detailed, more nuanced and more accurate, so there being fewer of them isn't necessarily a sign that they should be ignored due to sheer numerical comparisons.
I'd be tempted to start looking at "explainer" and summary articles which delve into the entire sequence of events in depth. That way, we can determine how they frame things when more context and detail is known. If the majority of overviews describe it as "x" then so should we. Lewisguile (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Headlines may not less reliable for factual information—but they are indubitably instructive when discussing how RS refer to events. Ekpyros (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I conceded that—again, notwithstanding, they're eminently reliable when it comes to how sources refer to events. If 10 sources describe the September 11, 2001 terror attacks as "9/11" in their headlines, then those headlines are of course reliable when it comes to the question of how sources refer to the attacks, just as we accept that an opinion column is a RS for the columnist's opinion, but not necessarily for other factual information. The statement you flagged above—Their headlines all refer to the situation as "attacks"—is empirically testable, and thus the WP:HEADLINES guidance does not apply. Ekpyros (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to "be overstated"? What is an "exaggeration"? What is a "sensationalized claim"? Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is specifically where WP:HEADLINES applies. We follow content, not titles.
Regarding your specific example, no we wouldn't care that news organizations put 9/11 in their headlines, we'd instead care if their content & analysis, persistently & reliably refer to it as such. WP:COMMONNAME would then apply as the September 11th attacks are nigh-universally referred to as "9/11".
In contrast however, a common name has not developed for this topic, with sources using varying terminology in their descriptions. As such, we use a descriptive title instead, based on the content of the event. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list seems to reflect a bias toward what American media called the violence. 12 American outlets, compared to only 5 outlets from the rest of the world. — Red XIV (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two reputable Korean sources:
In this Korean article they characterize the situation as "이스라엘 축구 팬들을 상대로 벌어진 폭력" using the word "폭력" or "violence" specifically calling it "violence that happened against Israeli soccer fans." [28]
In this other Korean article they say "이스라엘 축구 팬들을 겨냥한 폭력 사태가 벌어진 것은..." similarly using "~을 겨냥한 폭력" meaning violence aimed at [Israeli soccer fans].[29] Dazzling4 (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Violence" would be a better term to use in the article title than "attacks".VR (Please ping on reply) 04:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (for riot) in general the word "attacks" has been the first reaction of the main media, now when we have more information the media begin to use "riots". Obviously it has been framed as Israel-Arabs conflict, but few years ago when the clash of holigans happened with locals that resulted in episodes not so different from this one in terms of arrests and street violence the term ‘riot’ was always used. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason some media have used the word "riot" is because unrest has continued even after the Israelis have left. The article briefly mentions the tram arson for example. If unrest continues, I would support changing the name to riots. Dazzling4 (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally sure about your interpretation of the underlying reason. Maybe you are right and it is what motivates the media to switch to the term ‘riots’ to describe what has been going on. But it could be that they understand better that the riots were started the night before by some Maccabi fans (before the episodes of violence against some Maccabi fans took place), that also makes the term riots more appropriate. AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it also has something to do with the fact that many initial reports (suggesting that the violence was a one-sided ambush on Jewish football fans) proved to be highly inaccurate, and the original instigators turned out to be rioting Maccabi Ultras. — Red XIV (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "2024 Amsterdam riots" or "November 2024 Amsterdam riots".
"Riots" gives a more accurate idea of the events than "attacks". Indeed, "attacks" are perpetrated by one side against another while "riots" encompasses violence and damagr by more sides against each other and against the city as a whole (tearing down flags, burning taxis, attacking uninvolved citizens). ContiNuziali (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Vote struck per WP:ARBECR. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The title should be November 2024 Amsterdam antisemitic attacks—or potentially November 2024 Amsterdam attacks on Israeli soccer fans, which is a bit too wordy for my taste. Aside from the fact that those planning and organizing the attacks themselves described this as a "Jew Hunt", virtually every single RS notes that there was "antisemitism" and/or that the "attacks" were on "Jews"—and most have some combination of those words in their headlines. To call them simply "Amsterdam attacks" is silly—it sounds like the city attacked some entity (or vice versa), and tells us nothing notable about the actual attacks, other than where/when they occur. It would be like titling our article on the Battle of the Bulge the 1944-1945 Ardennes-Alsace hostilities. Ekpyros (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no question that the victims were targeted because they were Jews/Israeli, and this point should be emphasized. I would also support November 2024 Amsterdam antisemitic attacks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that Maccabi fans attacked people, vandalised people's homes and chanted genocidal slogans. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Amsterdam bans protests after 'antisemitic squads' attack Israeli soccer fans"
"Israeli soccer fans were attacked in Amsterdam. The violence was condemned as antisemitic"
"We must not turn blind eye to antisemitism, says Dutch king after attacks on Israeli football fans"
"Amsterdam police arrest more than 60 people after attacks on Israeli football fans"
"Antisemitic Attacks Prompt Emergency Flights for Israeli Soccer Fans"
Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DW "Fact check: Amsterdam video doesn't show attack on Israelis"
Quite a few of these news organisations have produced misinformation in this instance. Isoceles-sai (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As our section Media reporting explains, most of the early reports were incomplete, if not "ridiculously skewed". There have been rectifications, but it won't be hard to still find many outdated reports.
Most of the common/reliable Dutch media have mainly used headlines with the words "rellen" (riots), "geweld" (violence), of "ongeregeldheden" (disturbances), as demonstrated by recent top Google search results for "amsterdam maccabi wedstrijd" (chosen as neutral terms that should lead to a relatively unbiased selection of Dutch headlines about our topic):
AD Rellen in Amsterdam: dit gebeurde er na de wedstrijd Ajax tegen Maccabi Tel Aviv
College voor de Rechten van de Mens Geweld rond Ajax-Maccabi: laat het recht zijn beloop krijgen en verdraagzaamheid centraal staan
Opsporing Verzocht Verdachten getoond van ongeregeldheden rond wedstrijd Ajax - Maccabi Tel Aviv
Telegraaf Amsterdam: rellen rond Maccabi-wedstrijd ’giftige cocktail’, stadsbestuur kreeg geen waarschuwing van NCTV
nu.nl 10 van 62 opgepakten na Ajax-Maccabi zijn Israëlisch, meeste andere wonen hier
NOS Amsterdam overwoog verbod op Ajax-Maccabi na incidenten met fans en taxichauffeurs
politie.nl Liveblog: Ongeregeldheden rondom Ajax - Maccabi
Volkskrant [Liveblog Rellen Amsterdam]
Google search results for "amsterdam aanvallen" give surprisingly few headlines with "aanvallen" and an overwhelming majority of headlines about our topic uses the term "geweld" (besides slightly related headlines about police violence against pro-Palestine protesters)
In contrast, "amsterdam rellen" leads to plenty of headlines with "rellen".
Although less updated info could be expected in international media, results for "Amsterdam attacks" are not entirely dissimilar: the term pops up a few times (mostly in opionated sources?), while the term "violence" dominates the found headlines. "Amsterdam riots" also gives much "violence" in headlines, while "unrest" and "riots" are also common. Joortje1 (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is good analysis. Thanks. I would accept violence, clashes, or riots. Attacks seems increasingly inaccurate, especially as protests and riots have continued after the fact. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dazzling4 and COMMONNAME. "Attacks" is clearly the preferred descriptor of English-language RS reporting over "riots". Would also support something like November 2024 Amsterdam violence. Astaire (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The word "riot" is a more accurate and neutral term because it better describes the events, which involved vandalism, threats, and harassment from different sides. Calling it 'attacks' makes it sound one-sided, that doesn’t match the reality of a larger conflict with political motives. I would lean towards using "riots" or even "clashes" as suggested by others, since it’s consistent with similar past events. Plus, with provocation and participation from both sides, "attacks" carries misleading connotations of a unilateral or terrorist attacks. StarkReport (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming more clear every day that the initial reports were, to put it mildly, inaccurate and one-sided, and suggested a kind of organized large-scale action; "rellen", "riots" in English, is gaining currency. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Drmies. Seems early reports were incorrect, should be clear football fans will riot Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support riot, either with or without football. This is WP:CONSISTENT and per @Lewisguile, @Joortje1 and others accords more with WP:COMMONNAME. Lf8u2 (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support riot - per other users about earliest reports being incomplete. NHCLS (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. First the suggested new title ("2024 Amsterdam football riot") would imply riots perpetrated by soccer fans. But it is not clear if all of the attackers were footbol fans, and this whole thing has little to do with football. Secondly, both "attacks" and "riots" are used in publications. However, even sources that use "riots" in the title (e.g. [30]), clearly describe these events as antisemitic attacks (i.e. "The shocking violence against Israeli soccer fans on the streets of Amsterdam..." in same article). My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They also describe what the Maccabi fans did: they attacked people, vandalized people's homes and chanted genocidal slogans. In fact, they started it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "In fact, they started it." Who are "they"? The football fans? All of them? Of course not. I assume that "they" means orinary Jews because that is who has been the primary target according to publications, such as [31]: "failing to intercept the social media chatter calling for a general "hunting" of Jews which ultimately targeted "regular Israeli fans, grandparents with grandchildren who had come to watch the game and have a nice weekend in Amsterdam."). My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Maccabi fans. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But what is the point? I am only saying that burning a palestinian flag and "Jews hunt" [32] have little to do with football. Therefore, calling this page just "football riots" would be misleading. That's my point. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the suggested titles is "2024 Amsterdam riot" (without the word "football"). M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Amsterdam riots" would be better, but the events, as described, are attacks rather than riots. And they are mostly notable as antisemitic attacks, per NYT and other best sources, e.g. Chaos, Provocations and Violence: How Attacks on Israeli Soccer Fans Unfolded. Sure, the attacks have been provoked by a few hooligans, and more importantly by the events in Middle East. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's important at this stage is that we at least agree with the proposed title. You might want to adjust you !vote accordingly. M.Bitton (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to "riot" if it is clearlt defined as a race riot, rather than a sports riot.My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I most strongly agree with you here, this was not a riot between Maccabi supporters and Ajax supporters at all. Football had absolutely nothing to do with it. AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't define words in the title. I !voted for "2024 Amsterdam riots" with the understanding that the article's body will do the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the full article, but that quote "The shocking violence against Israeli soccer fans on the streets of Amsterdam" does not mention antisemitism.
Also, from the little I can read by searching for the quote you use elsewhere, "regular Israeli fans, grandparents with grandchildren who had come to watch the game and have a nice weekend in Amsterdam." is attributed to David de Jong, who doesn't work for Haaretz, so I'm unsure of what the context is or what they base that assessment on. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, the NYT article starts from the phrase: "Antisemitic assaults on visiting Israeli soccer fans, and incendiary chants and attacks by some Israelis...". Same in BBC, etc. No one actually disputes that the attacks were antisemitic, i.e. directed simply at perceived Jews or citizens of Israel, rather than at specific hooligans (that would be work for police). But sure, this is only a part of the story as the same sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that relates to what I wrote, as I was specifically commenting on the quotes from Haaretz.
However, "Antisemitic assaults on visiting Israeli soccer fans, and incendiary chants and attacks by some Israelis..." falls under WP:HEADLINE as it is only mentioned in the sub-headline, not in the article's body. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a headline or a sub-headline in NYT article. Neither it was in BBC article linked above [33], i.e. "City officials described the violence as a "toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism, and anger”, "The Dutch government has responded by allocating €4.5m (£3.6m) to combat antisemitism and support victims.", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that is definitely from the sub-headline in NYT article
"Antisemitic assaults on visiting Israeli soccer fans, and incendiary chants and attacks by some Israelis: Here’s what we know so far about the violence in Amsterdam last week."
It's directly under the headline, but before the body i.e. a sub-headline.
Regardless, I never brought up the BBC & you were the one who brought up NYT, both of which are unrelated to my initial reply specifically commenting on the quotes from Haaretz & looking for clarification/context. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most stronlgy Oppose. This was not a riot between Maccabi supporters and Ajax supporters at all. Football had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was not a riot between hooligans. If Ajax hooligans were to choose a side, they would have sided with Maccabi. Yeah, cannot provide you a 'reliable source' that confirms that, but I was at the match, and I am an Ajax fan living near the stadium. Believe me. AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you oppose? The use of the word "football" or "riots"? M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Current title implies the violence was one-sided. Rainsage (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dazzling4 and WP:COMMONNAME. - Amigao (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If "Amsterdam attacks" ever was the obvious wp:commonname, it seems to have become outdated since more information became available. The wp:rs found via google search results for "amsterdam attacks" and "amsterdam riots" are both actually dominated by the term "violence". While "attacks" doesn't seem more widely used than "riot", it has relatively many old and potentially biased results (The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post), while "riots" leads to more recent and presumably more neutral reports, including for instance ABC News (Australia)'s analysis Amsterdam riots: what really happened, and France 24's International media accused of skewing and lying in coverage of Amsterdam riots.
    Dazzling4 claimed to support "riots" if the unrest continued after the "tram arson". I don't see why the rioting on the 11th, in addition to the events of the 6th, 7th and 8th wouldn't suffice. Police, press and public transport also expected new riots on the 12th, but fortunately this was prevented, probably by the presence of police , street coaches and local parents). Joortje1 (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor quibble: since you !voted above, might be good to clearly mark this as an "additional comment" or similar, or start a new section if you think it's needed.
    I don't think two videos gives that much signal regarding the WP:COMMONNAME; here are some similarly recent RS using "attacks": [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].
    From what I'm seeing "attacks" still seems somewhat more common in headlines, and perhaps more so in article bodies (considering references to the event, not "riot gear" etc). — xDanielx T/C\R 06:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only highlighted 2 of the many google search results, because these address the previous misinformation, like their titles suggest. Your [34] actually features a similar argument: "[Amsterdam mayor Halsema] also condemned Israel for its swift portrayal of the incident as an attack on Israelis", and is accompanied by a link to another article that refers to the fuller scope of events as "riots". [37] merely points out that some video was falsely presented as a "celebration of attacks on Israeli soccer fans". [39] and [41] are the 2 sources that I said were potentially biased, but besides the explicit opinion piece [39], the Jerusalem Post happens to also have a a news article describing the events as "riots" and features Halsema addressing "propaganda to attack the Muslim community". [38] another Israeli source, is also about Halsema's rectification and publisher Haaretz also has another article refering to the events as "Amsterdam riots". The pattern that I suggested thus is very clear, even in many of your sources that would purportedly support that "attacks" is the wp:commonname. Most of your other sources don't allow a swift check of article bodies. Joortje1 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're veering off-topic - "attacks" remains accurate and common regardless of how many victims were Israelis vs others. What seems more pertinent to COMMONNAME is that [34] continues using "attacks" to describe the event.
    [37] still refers to the event as "attacks", but maybe it's iffy since it doesn't focus on the actual attacks. That's reasonable to discount [39] as a biased opinion piece; ToI however is pretty mainstream.
    By calling Haaretz "another Israeli source" are you implying bias? If anything Haaretz is known for anti-Israeli bias, though it's a mixed bag. If we're expanding the discussion to include older articles, Haaretz has a bunch of them about the event, and only one uses "riots" in the headline. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Attacks" may be accurate for some of the violence from either side, but as many sources point out (including several from your list), it's problematic how certain incidents were initially singled out (and incorrectly framed by media and politicians), without the proper context of the rioting that took place. This is adressed in [34] and many other sources, not the least in those about Halsema's regrets about her "pogroms" remark concerning the attacks that thus again get singled out (3 of your 9 sources).
    The wider scale of events is described as "The football match violence" in [34], and "Amsterdam violence" looks more like wp:commonname for this topic when I check (unpersonalised) google search results for various terms (in English as well as in Dutch, see my analysis somwehere above). However, many (if not most) of the neutral or at least nuanced reports with overviews of the events tend to use "riots", which better covers the vandalism, threatening behaviour, and other "unrest" (another common term for this topic) as well as the physical violence against people. Sure, it's still possible to list dozens of relatively recent headlines with "attacks", but relatively few give a neutral overview of the events (which our article is supposed to do).
    Haaretz is indeed known for being critical of Nethanyahu's government and Israeli control over Palestian territories. Regardless of the specific nature of the bias, Israeli or Palestinian sources can relatively easily be excepected to be biased on anything related to Israel-Palestine tensions, so it seemed notable that 4 of your 9 sources are Israeli. Joortje1 (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your first point, which focuses on accuracy rather than WP:COMMONNAME: I agree "attacks" doesn't capture the context, but that seems fine, we don't need to modify titles to bring background/context explicitly into scope. E.g. we wouldn't need to rename Six-Day War to explicitly include preparations, we just cover them anyway as relevant background events.
    "Riots" seems worse because it fails to capture the "main event" itself, which was a series of planned and coordinated attacks. "Riot" doesn't fit there, since it would imply that most participants acted spontaneously without planning or coordination.
    "Violence" might be reasonable to consider, but should probably be a separate RM. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the Six-Day War, we don't have a a common name here, so accuracy becomes the priority.
    Also, "a series of planned and coordinated attacks" was not the "main event", Maccabi fans were rioting & vandalizing buildings on the 6th, before anyone confronted them & independently of any outside coordination. They also continued to do so the following day. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely Maccabi fans' activities on the 6th were not the main event, there's a vast difference in the scale of violence as well as coverage in RS. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we've discussed before, there isn't "a vast difference in the scale of violence", especially now that some footage previously thought to show Maccabi fans being assaulted in actuality portrayed them assaulting others.
    Even if you were to say that Maccabi fans causing several riots isn't the "main event" though, the idea that outside coordination is, does not seemed grounded in reliable sources. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The focus of most reliable sources is indeed the significant violence against Jews, not the assault of one taxi driver or what not. Non-violent acts like tearing down flags are just fundamentally incomparable to the violence that occurred. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm going to have to post these links again as you've repeatedly ignored/dismissed them as "non-violent acts"
    "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."
    Now with more links to further the point
    "[A] group of men, many wearing Maccabi fan colors, picking up pipes and boards from a construction site, then chasing and beating a man."
    "Israeli hooligans arm themselves with sticks on their way to the centre of Amsterdam, and how they throw stones at the police and a house with a Palestinian flag on the facade."
    "The video by De Graaf actually shows supporters of the Israeli soccer club Maccabi Tel Aviv attacking locals around Amsterdam Central Station."
    Despite initial reporting being mixed in their coverage, focus has began to shift more specifically towards the rioting, violence, & provocations of the Maccabi fans. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You listed the taxi incident twice when I already acknowledged it. Picking up sticks in case they needed to fend off attackers isn't a violent crime.
    If we're not assuming that holding a stick or belt implies guilt, we seem to be talking about 2-3 incidents where the aggressors appeared to be Maccabi fans (assuming they were correctly identified and we're not missing context like a violent provocation), which still isn't comparable to the coordinated attacks targeting Jews on a larger scale. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think you've already decided what this article is about & nothing I write would convince you otherwise.
    As I think I've already made my point for others still deciding what title they'd prefer, I see little point in discussing this with you further. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that plenty of people besides me have convincingly argued that "attacks" is not wp:commonname, ever since the proposal's remark "There is no single WP:COMMONNAME, so we must rely on WP:NDESC". I have not seen any counter-argument that wasn't more convincingly disputed in replies.
    Our article's lede properly describes an extensive chain of events as reported in up-to-date wp:rs, from which "a series of planned and coordinated attacks" or anything similar can't neutrally get identified as "main event".
    As covered in our article and sufficiently pointed out by many wp:rs and repeated by editors, singling out the attacks on Israelis without the context (among other misrepresentations) is considered a failure of initial media coverage, and has been abused (if not instigated) as propaganda. Joortje1 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you agree that violence was the main event, not the tearing of flags or what not? Surely some characteristically poor behavior by football fans wouldn't have even made the news if not for the significant violence that followed. And as you said, many sources are referring to the event "Amsterdam violence".
    I'm all for including relevant background events which led to the violence, they just shouldn't drive our naming decisions. Like we wouldn't rename Six-day war to Preparations before the six-day war; the latter is included as relevant background but isn't the main topic. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd chose "Amsterdam violence" in the title over "Amsterdam attacks", and have no strong objections against it, although I think it 's somewhat ambiguous (I hope that Amsterdam will be spared additional outbursts of violence this month, but I don't know whether the 20–30 people with slight injuries and 5 short hospitalisations is/stays below statistics about for instance violence between police and anti-war protesters). Regardless, there's no proposal for that move and I support the current one.
    "Amsterdam riots" (or singular if others insist) and especially "November 2024 Amsterdam riots" seem much better to me. To sum up several arguments:
    -no reason to pick out any of the many elements from a chain of events (as described in our lede and body text) that's typical of riots
    -the term is supported by many wp:rs, especially those that are relatively neutral, up-to-date and comprehensive
    -it fits the wikpidea naming pattern that Industrial Metal Brain identified below
    To follow your example: I wouldn't call the Six-Day War or 1967 Arab–Israeli War something like "1967 Israeli attacks", even if most sections predominantly describe Israeli attacks (and defenses against those attacks) and Israel's initial surprise attack is explicitly described as "most critical move of the conflict". Just like "war" fits those events, "riots" fits the recent violence around the Maccabi-Ajax match. Sorry, but I don't see how "riots" compares to "Preparations (etc.)", nor how the many documented events that the term "riots" covers can be considered mere "background events" to the violence (an element also covered by the term "riots"). Joortje1 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Israeli Club's CEO Says Amsterdam Violence Not About Football". Barrons. AFP. 8 November 2024. Retrieved 12 November 2024. "The violence that erupted after a Europa League match in Amsterdam had nothing to do with football, the CEO of the Israeli club whose fans were injured said on Friday. - "This was not connected to football... Lots of people went to a football game to support Maccabi Tel Aviv, to support Israel, to support the Star of David, and for them to be running into rivers, to be kicked while defenceless on the floor ... that's very, very sad times for us all given the last year that we've had to experience," the club's CEO Ben Mansford told journalists at Ben Gurion airport.
  2. ^ "Israeli soccer fans attacked in Amsterdam, with 5 hospitalized and dozens of suspects arrested". www.cbsnews.com. 8 November 2024. Retrieved 12 November 2024. CBS News correspondent Ramy Inocencio reports, bloody brawls between rival fans around soccer games in Europe — so called hooliganism — are not new, but since the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack by Hamas and other militants sparked the still-raging war that has killed tens of thousands of people, antisemitism has surged across the continent and beyond.
  3. ^ "Israeli soccer fans attacked in Amsterdam, with 5 hospitalized and dozens of suspects arrested - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 8 November 2024. Retrieved 12 November 2024. This is a very dark moment for the city, for which I am deeply ashamed," Halsema said at a news conference on Friday. "Anti-semitic criminals attacked and assaulted visitors to our city, in hit-and-run actions.
  4. ^ Staff, Jerusalem Post (8 November 2024). "'Jew hunt': Rioters planned Amsterdam pogrom in Telegram groups in advance - report". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 12 November 2024. Along with calls for violence against Jewish people and Israelis in messaging groups, addresses of Jews were allegedly circulated among drivers in WhatsApp groups, De Telegraaf wrote.
  5. ^ Meichtry, Stacy; Mackrael, Kim; Peled, Anat (10 November 2024). "Calls for 'Jew Hunt' Preceded Attacks in Amsterdam". Archived from the original on 8 November 2024. Retrieved 12 November 2024. Messaging app Telegram was used to talk about "going on Jew hunts," Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said. "This is so shocking and despicable that I cannot get over it yet. It is a disgrace," she said. A screenshot of a pro-Palestinian WhatsApp group chat, viewed by the Journal, called for a "Jew Hunt" on Thursday and referred to a standoff on Wednesday night in which a group of Israeli fans were cornered by a crowd that police said included taxi drivers who had responded to an online call to mobilize.
  6. ^ Rayner, Gordon; Stringer, Connor (8 November 2024). "Revealed: How Pro-Palestinian mob organised via WhatsApp to 'Hunt Jews' across Amsterdam". The Telegraph. Now it has emerged that the 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." – "Tomorrow we work them."
  7. ^ Corder, Mike (8 November 2024). "Israeli soccer fans were attacked in Amsterdam. The violence was condemned as antisemitic". Associated Press. AP. Retrieved 12 November 2024. Israeli fans were assaulted after a soccer game in Amsterdam by hordes of young people apparently riled up by calls on social media to target Jewish people, Dutch authorities said Friday.
  8. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/nov/26/west-ham-antisemitic-chants-sickening
  9. ^ https://www.dw.com/en/antisemitism-in-european-football-time-to-change-the-chants/a-59106242
  10. ^ https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-757798
  11. ^ https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46563997
  12. ^ "Relschoppers bekogelen voertuigen en politie in Amsterdam, drie aanhoudingen". nos.nl (in Dutch). 2024-11-11. Retrieved 2024-11-12.

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

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

We follow reliable sources, not our interpretations. Unless a large number of reliable sources use that language, we can't describe their chants as such. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy for the language used to be included. I thought long and hard about this myself, and considered something like "glorifying violence" or "incitement to violence", but felt it's tricky territory. Including the actual words said without passing comment is less fraught. Lewisguile (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would make the argument that "genocidal", even if it sounds stronger, is more accurate and closer to the actual speech than your suggestions. But in any case, yes, I think using the actual words is better than having "anti-Arab" as the only characterization. WikiFouf (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using the term "genocidal" here is an interpretation rather than a factual description of what is literally being said. "From the river to the sea" can have different interpretations, for example, but "Death to Arabs" is unequivocally genocidal. I think describing that and "no children left" as simply "anti-Arab" is deceiving.
(As an aside, we should also take into account that mainstream media have a pretty well documented bias in the language they use to describe both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I made this point a while ago in another talk page regarding the term "massacre". And whereas "massacre" is emotional language, "genocidal" has a clear definition that matches "death to Arabs" literally.) WikiFouf (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already WP:OR to suggest that the same Israelis who were being attacked were the ones who chanted, to add further WP:UNDUE commentary about the characteristics of the chants is unwarranted commentary failing WP:NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never talked about whether or not these are the same Israelis. My point is about how the slogans, when mentioned, should be described. WikiFouf (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether or not you mentioned it. Please keep in mind the name of the page you are editing. What matters is what the article in sum says. It is OR and UNDUE and not NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring. They are talking about the songs. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OR to give a full account of the incidents. Neither any editors on this talk page nor any version of the article has ever implied those chanting "Death to Arabs" were the same individuals who were attacked, so there is absolutely no issue here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bobfrombrockley, I think you'll find that it's been implied not a few times. This comment for example comes very close to saying it explicitly: While they may have suffered the most damage, it’s important to remember that they also provoked the incident by chanting anti-Arab slogans, attacking an Arab taxi driver, and disrespecting the Palestinian flag. For over a week (in this article less than 2 weeks old), we carried the quote: "Were Jews attacked in the streets? Yes, but those Jews were also violent hooligans."
So forgive editors like @DolyaIskrina (and myself) who might seem a bit sensitive to this implication. Hopefully you'll see that it is not quite as rare as you or I might have hoped. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by the original decision, which was to quote "death to Arabs" or similar, and let the readers make up their own minds what chants like this mean. It might be more accurate to call such chants "incitement to violence" or "celebration of genocide" than merely "genocidal" anyway, and either way, someone is likely to see this sort of wording as controversial. A direct quote doesn't require further commentary and has the benefit of being fairly concise. Lewisguile (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile, I don't have a problem with the quoting of the chants here. I was responding to @Bobfrombrockley saying that Neither any editors on this talk page nor any version of the article has ever implied those chanting "Death to Arabs" were the same individuals who were attacked, so there is absolutely no issue here.
And by the way, here are a couple more, also from before Bob wrote his comment:
Here: No "attacks", but hooligans doing hooligan stuff and looking for trouble and finding it.
Here: It appears that the Maccabi fans were behaving very poorly beforehand in a way reminiscent of (racist) soccer hooligans, and were attacked largely for that reason.
I'm not having a go at you Bob, I just think that you missed why some editors have been a bit triggered by some of the discussion here and the page itself at times. Doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to Wikipedia:AGF (including about the people whose comments I've quoted), but assuming good faith doesn't mean we have to ignore the fact that there is a very real problem of people assuming the victims of the attacks were guilty of misbehaviour, and discussing/editing accordingly. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.es, I think you were clear enough, don't worry II was adding to your comment. agree that people have made those claims, and pointing out that just including the chant is the best way forward since we can neatly avoid the debate about whether it is/isn't accurate/balanced to say "genocidal" in the first place. Lewisguile (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you or I believe is an accurate description here. "Genocidal" is an incredibly loaded word & shouldn't be used unless you have extensive reliable sources to back it up. MOS:LABEL. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "death to Arabs" doesn't leave anything to interpretation or personal belief. It calls for the death of a people, it's genocidal in the literal sense. The fact that it's a strong or "loaded" term doesn't negate that it has an actual definition which clearly applies in this case. WikiFouf (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those songs are genocidal (this is a fact). Is there any other way to describe "let the IDF win and fuck the Arabs. Ole ole, ole ole ole. Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there!"? M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look what sources there are:
  • Het Parool has an opinion piece titled "Opinion: 'Every Maccabi fan should have thrown his scarf in the bin after the genocidal slogans over Gaza'". [43]
  • Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (Dutch public broadcaster) quotes Dutch Denk (political party) politician Stephan van Baarle saying in the Dutch House of Representatives that "hypocritical politicians were silent as Maccabi thugs chanted racist and genocidal slogans about Gaza, vandalised Palestinian flags and attacked a taxi driver". [44] His statement is quoted by a good number of other Dutch outlets as well.
  • The New York Times quotes van Baarle too: "Where were the police when Maccabi thugs chanted genocidal and racist slogans about Gaza?" [45]
  • Trouw mentions in its live blog (15:37, 8-11-2024) a complaint from the Palestinian Authority that "genocidal chants" ("Genocidale gezangen tegen Arabieren en Palestijnen") preceded the attacks. [46]
  • Middle East Eye says "The hooligans' mindset aligns with the genocidal culture that has permeated Israeli society since 7 October 2023". [47]
  • The New Arab says, 'As reported by the Clash Report, the Maccabi fans, who were protected by police, “chanted anti-Arab slurs and a genocidal song in Amsterdam”, including lines such as “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left”, “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs” and “Fuck you Palestine”.' [48]
  • The Times of Israel features a Clash report tweet speaking of a "genocidal song". [49]
  • The Week (Indian magazine) says, "Meanwhile, unverified videos doing rounds on social media claimed Israelis allegedly chanting anti-Arabs slurs and genocidal songs about dead children in Gaza, even before the attacks began." [50]
  • The Jerusalem Post reports that a French MP said Israelis "took up genocidal and pro-Netanyahu chants." [51]
  • Anadolu Ajansı (state-run Turkish agency) quotes an Erev Rav member saying fans "sang racist and genocidal songs on public transportation". [52]
Make of that what you will --- personally, I think it's not enough to put it in wiki voice, but enough to mention somewhere, with attribution. Andreas JN466 20:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agree. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's my personal view that these chants were genocidal, but we can't say that in wikivoice if a preponderance of sources don't say it. (Similarly, we can't call the later attacks a pogrom or attribute motive to any attackers without sources.) It might now be enough to say that some have described these chants as genocidal, if those people (e.g. the PA, maybe the French MP?) are noteworthy, but only one of the non-opinion sources here (The Week) seems to say it in their own voice rather than attributed BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that it's not enough for WikiVoice but is enough for a mention. Even though most of these sources aren't using their own voice, they're still platforming the view that the chants were genocidal, indicating that it's a prominent view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we originally settled on just including direct quotes in the article, which is why the current wording (anti-Arab chants such as "Death to Arabs") is there. The rationale at the time was that this way, readers can make up their own minds. However, I would not object to anyone saying something like the chants were described by x, y and z as "genocidal", etc. It would probably need to be in a longer sentence/its own paragraph than the direct quotes, which are currently embedded within other, longer points because of their brevity. Lewisguile (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which individuals' reactions are WP:DUE

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

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

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

We have discussed this previously (multiple times, in fact). Yes, the politicians and king were included, but that shouldn't be the limit. Others were included either as local sources and to cover the responses of civil society. Leaving out local residents would itself be problematic.
If you have specific issues with specific quotes, let's go through them one by one and we can discuss them (note that I'm clocking off now so won't respond until the morning, so apologies in advance for any delayed responses).
And can we please, please, please stop it with the bad faith comments and digs at other editors' motives? It's enough to say the comments appear to be skewed. There's no need to make inflammatory comments as well. Remember, Wikipedia is not a forum. Lewisguile (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile, in response to your request for specific quotes. with the DENK issue sorted, I think the first specific quote left in this section that I think are problematic are the Jelle Zijlstra one. Including the assertion that the Jews who were attacked are violent hooligans strikes me as totally unjustified. This is not a denial of hooliganism, even violent hooliganism, by some Maccabi fans. There were several thousand Maccabi fans present, and it seems several hundred subject to attacks, harassment and intimidation on the night of the football match. Are we actually going to repeat the claim, or at least the very strong implication, that all the Maccabi fan victims were violent hooligans? That no innocent football fans who just came to support their team were targeted? If the claim were made by someone who is themselves a significant voice, it would be one thing, but as it is I don't see how it can be borne.
The second quote that I think is problematic is the Jazie Veldhuyzen one - not that I think this quote needs to be removed, but the councilman's political affiliation should absolutely be made explicit (the term "radical left" is used here for BIJ1, and doesn't seem too value-laden to me).
Thirdly, you're right of course about questioning the motives of certain additions. Although... well suffice to say I will find it difficult enough to restrain myself that I think I'll disengage from this article for at least a few days. It's been a rabbit hole, but I thank you for being a consistent, reasonable contributor to this page. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I absolutely understand! It's a difficult time to be a Wikipedia editor at the moment but your contributions are valuable nevertheless. I'll take a look at those quotes and see what we can do for NPOV. I'll post a summary of any edits I make here afterwards, but I won't tag you so you can come back to check when you feel able (there's no rush). Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the Responses section here. Note that we have received more info now about the direct causes and context of the violence, so I've updated some other sections too. Lewisguile (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was the person who included the MP for DENK, and I have added the references to the missing BIJ1 councillor. I didn't add the BIJ1 councillor just the references and the text agreeing with them as a solution to some erroneous references. I do not judge the relevance of this councillor, I just fixed a technical error. As for the DENK deputy, I included precisely the links to his page and to the DENK page, so that the reader can judge for himself the relevance of the assessment (and actually before adding this I checked that he has a page in wikipedia in english as a filter, and he has). I understand your (@talk) point of view, but in the Netherlands DENK represents precisely the immigrant population in the Netherlands, so from the perspective of the Dutch communities involved in the facts it is a relevant voice. Anyway, most of the responses from Dutch politicians are comments from the official (national and local) government, so one single comment from another voice seems reasonable. As for your assertion about the underlying hidden reasons of the editors, I think it goes nowhere in the first place because references have been given, and links to his page and his political party so everything is open. On the other hand why hide this opinion. Of course this can be debated to try to reach a consensus. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You alone are fighting for more reactions, when many other editors agree that this is clearly WP:UNDUE Dazzling4 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need a "one-in-one-out" policy for reactions. The RSes can stay in, but we can devote less space to direct quotes and just summarise the main points if two or more people agree. Lewisguile (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't frame it that way. I'm not ‘fighting’, and I don't like that some editors are targeting/pointing fingers at other editors. I have never done that, and I advocate freedom of discussion here for anyone. I was always open to discussions and in fact I thank several editors who deleted content I added when they explained well the reasons for their actions. Honestly, I look for content about reactions in the Netherlands and every single piece of content I added was backed up by references. On the other hand, it is false that ‘I am alone’, as other editors have repeatedly argued that including only ‘government’ statements can be a way to introduce bias and that reactions from civil society or other political parties is reasonable. Please instead of fingering other editors, try to discuss with references and I kindly remind you my statement: "Of course this can be debated to try to reach a consensus.", so I never tried to impose an specific point of view but discuss. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Jewish community organised who seems pretty anonymous" I don't know exactly to what you are referring. If it is about the Kristallnacht commemoration is is an important local event in Amsterdam and it is not only involving this NGO but also an international NGO. It has been a relevant thing in Netherlands: I gave several references to newspapers (in Netherlands and Internationals) plus other international references to these NGO. It is just your opinion about "pretty anonymous", the number of references may say other thing. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lewisguile and AyubuZimbale that it is important to present a broad range of responses, including responses from local groups and residents. Andreas JN466 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding quotes such as Schwartz, we used her because her quote was more articulate and encompassing than similar commenters who made the same/similar points—the alternatives were less encyclopaedic in content. I think if we were to remove her, we'd have to add in someone like Asa Winstanley again, which is likely to be more controversial. There should be someone representing the critique of Sky News, at any rate, because there's been a huge response to their edited footage (even though I think they were probably playing it sensibly by editing the footage if there was any doubt about who was included).
Bear in mind that most quotes have also been edited and gained consensus over multiple days, so they've been pruned and trimmed as much as they can be without losing coherence. Lewisguile (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have edited the DENK quotation to get to the core point and remove the invective. That may look better to you now, @Samuelshraga? Since Wilder's comments were discussed as being weaponised, I've left similar comments of his in, as that felt more relevant. Lewisguile (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've brought this up in other threads and other editors agreed that the reactions section is completely undue. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many others editors agreed that the reactions sections is needed. If you read just few lines above, for example, @Jayen466 commented "it is important to present a broad range of responses, including responses from local groups and residents.". Also there were other archived discussions about it. If you read also few lines above @Lewisguile "Bear in mind that most quotes have also been edited and gained consensus over multiple days". AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the responses section is fine now. If we were to cut anything, it should probably be the various politicians (and the king) who mostly say the same thing, since we can summarise and say "x, y, and z said...". But I think that most people would object to that anyway, in case it makes the responses look lopsided. I think leaving it as is is the best option.
At a push, we could move the fallout among politicians under "Aftermath". Perhaps by nesting "Legal" as a subheading under "Aftermath" (after "Media coverage"), with "Political" coming after that. That way, the "Aftermath" section is also even longer relative to the "Responses" section. Lewisguile (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A novel view was published in the Jerusalem Post today, by the way, by the Israeli right-winger Alon Davidi:
Andreas JN466 23:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interrupting my pause from this page after some engagement from @AyubuZimbale.
I already acceded that @Lewisguile was right to say I was too quick to imply something wrong with the motives of other editors, and while my comment opening this section wasn't aimed at any particular individual, I'd still like to say that I think that the content issues that I brought up could all have been better dealt with by keeping it in the terms of normal disagreement about content.
I haven't gone over @AyubuZimbale's every edit, but nothing I saw said that I should have treated it as more than a content dispute, or stopped WP:AGF. That's my bad, and I'm sorry. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response, Samuel. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but it's water under the bridge from my perspective. Other editors will, I'm sure, speak for themselves. BTW, you can edit your own comments or you can strike them if you want to keep them up but still redact them. You can do the latter by using {{strike|original text here}}. Lewisguile (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Samuelshraga for your words. I also overreacted a bit. I appreciate both the comments of @Samuelshraga and those of @Lewisguile. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers injured in lede/lead

Looking through all the reports, the lead in this Wiki article 'Most of the targets of the violence were Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv fans' is at least questionable. This is not explicitly stated in the reference, it's just that most of the MSM have relied heavily on the word of Maccabi fans and have decided to focus on their version of events. In contrast most intimidation and violence actually caught on camera appear to be coming from Maccabi fans. Andromedean (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we know 20–30 Israelis were lightly injured and 5 were hospitalised. We don't know how many Amsterdammers were injured. I wouldn't object if you changed it though. Lewisguile (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, we actually don't know "20–30 Israelis were lightly injured and 5 were hospitalised", as the number 20-30 represents all injuries, not just Maccabi fans. I believe the same goes for those hospitalized, but I'm not as confident in that reading as I'm having issues confirming or denying if that is correct or not.
To be specific though, Israel themselves have only confirmed 10 Israelis to've been injured.
An additional 20 to 30 people suffered minor injuries. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said 10 Israelis were injured. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen varying reports. I had initially assumed the 20–30 was everyone but couldn't find that when I looked a few days ago, so went with "Mostly Israelis". Checking again now, I can see most say 20–30 (+5) total, while only a minority of older sources say that number was specifically the Israeli fans—notably this early report from the NYT. But the NYT got a few things wrong early on, and their newer coverage hedges this much more. Now they say: "Five people were taken to hospital injured — they were discharged on Friday — with as many as 30 more suffering minor injuries." Based on that, I think you're right. It would probably be best to outline the exact numbers in the lede. So, "20–30 people sustained light injuries, including 10 Israelis. Five people were hospitalised. 62 people were arrested, including 10 Israelis." I'll amend the lede as appropriate. Lewisguile (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede updated. I teased this thread out from the other one so it's easier to find. Lewisguile (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that change, it seems to be more balanced now. On the face of it, hospital casualties might seem to be a more evidenced way of attributing violence. However, even if the figures are accurate, we still need to be careful, since some groups might be eager to be counted as casualties, whilst others will be fearful of drawing the attention of the police. Andromedean (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a tricky one. Hospitalisations are probably good for serious injuries (I think few people would avoid hospital for those), but less reliable for determining how many were injured overall. Lewisguile (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede now seems to imply that the remaining 10-20 injuries were not Israelis. I think that's misleading, or at best WP:SYNTH, since we're implying something not stated in the sources. Telegraph says At least 25 Israelis were reportedly injured .... BBC says Around 20 to 30 other Maccabi supporters were "lightly" injured .... I'm not sure if the "10 Israelis" figure is outdated, or it might be based on some different interpretation of what is considered an injury. But we shouldn't use the gap in estimates of Israeli injuries to imply that many non-Israelis were injured, when sources don't indicate that. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing the Israeli foreign office figure is probably wisest for now? The sources are all over the place with this. My instinct is that this is all due to different media reading Reuters' initial press release differently and so all using slightly different wording. It's probably best to wait for some updated figures. Lewisguile (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said on 16 November that the nationality of the people treated in hospital was unknown [53]:
  • Bis heute ist nicht klar, wie viele Menschen verletzt wurden, die Amsterdamer Behörden sprachen von 20 bis 30 Maccabi-Fans. Fünf Menschen mussten für einige Stunden im Krankenhaus behandelt werden – aber ob diese Menschen aus Israel stammen, wurde nicht gesagt, obwohl es in vielen Medien so dargestellt wird. Die Amsterdamer Polizei wollte sich auf mehr­fache Nachfrage der F.A.S. nicht dazu äußern.
  • It is still not clear how many people were injured, but the Amsterdam authorities spoke of 20 to 30 Maccabi fans. Five people had to be treated in hospital for several hours - but it was not said whether these people were from Israel, although this is how it is portrayed in many media. The Amsterdam police did not want to comment on this when asked several times by the Frankfurter Allgemeine on Sunday.
Andreas JN466 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests to me that the 20–30 people were Israeli, and the five hospitalised were probably Israeli too, but unconfirmed. There's WP:NORUSH, however, so I'm happy to wait for a few more sources to be specific here. At the moment, we have things pointing in both directions. Lewisguile (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regret over 'pogrom' claim

Amsterdam Mayor: "I REGRET Claiming Pogrom And Not Denouncing Tel Aviv Thugs' Violence." Femke Halsema acknowledged that using the term “pogrom” escalated tensions, becoming a political tool, following violent clashes between Israeli soccer fans and pro-Palestinian protesters. The incident has fueled intense debate. Source: Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, The New Arab, Dutch News, among others. Wikiloginproton (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was added to the main text by other editor. I will add several of the sources you mentioned to support the international relevance of these declarations. But I am happy to discuss with other editors about it, and where is the best place to include this information. AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant. Others have also said that how the event was covered played a part in increasing antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism. Lewisguile (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewisguile: looks like you added some related content to the lede. Since the mayor's comments focus on the word "pogrom" in particular, I feel we would need context about that word in order to include the mayor's comments. It might be a bit hard to fit in the lede, but at least we have it with that relevant context in the Amsterdam section. What do you think? — xDanielx T/C\R 16:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It's a tricky one, isn't it? I was trying to keep that sentence as neutral as possible, using "misinformation" instead of "propaganda", since the media coverage (and responses to that coverage) have played a significant part of the overall story. But on reflection, I can see why it's insufficient to use Halsema's comments alone to illustrate that. And using those comments then opens up another can of worms.
I'm happy to keep that line out for now. I also wouldn't be opposed to mentioning both her use of the word "pogrom" and what she saw as the "propaganda" that ensued afterwards, but I suspect that's likely to be contentious for someone, so I'm also happy if we park for that later. Doing it justice in just a few words would be tricky. Lewisguile (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks - I'm also not necessarily against some content about "pogrom" if editors feel it's okay to expand the lede, but yeah might need a few sentences to cover it well. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we see if anyone else weighs in and otherwise pick it up later in the week? We can propose a couple of sentences here at that point, and then if we agree, put them in? I think it's do-able, but we will need to make sure we get some consensus beforehand to avoid a protracted debate. Lewisguile (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important information, particularly relevant to the content of the article, and worth the extra sentences. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to combine the two versions. See my comment here. I'm hoping this is broadly acceptable to most people, since it covers the main points but is still relatively short and keeps it all in context. Lewisguile (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda is the word used in at least five RS. I've added it back to the lead. Kire1975 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bluelink to Pogrom is plenty of context. Not sure what else you're waiting for. Kire1975 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context about Halsema said - it's strange to cover her (sort of) retraction without context about her initial remarks. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her initial remarks are included. Kire1975 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the word pogrom though, until the sentence you added about her regretting that word. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop

Looks like there's consensus to cover this in the lede, maybe something like this? We could cite the Haaretz source which covers all of this in a pretty neutral manner.

Some commentators characterized the event as a pogrom, triggering a debate about whether the term was accurate. Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema initially compared the event to a pogrom, but later regretted her use of the word due to its politicization by Israeli and Dutch politicians.

It's a bit tricky to summarize Halsema's comments as they're nuanced, like her early comment was I understand very well that this brings back the memory of pogroms. I suppose we could quote her if we're okay with expanding this into a small paragraph. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the lede, with one inline citation in the lede and four more in the body. The debate was triggered when pogrom was first used. The mayor's acknowledgment of regret is what makes it notable enough for the lede. Kire1975 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx I think your version is substantially better than what's currently in the lede. At the moment, the first mention of the word "pogrom" is to say that the mayor of Amsterdam regrets using it. That reads weirdly, the reader needs the context that this was a widely made but controversial historical reference in the aftermath of the attack to understand why:
a) the Mayor of Amsterdam made the remark at all
b) the Mayor of Amsterdam regrets making the comparison.
Samuelshraga (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to combine the two versions. See my comment here. Lewisguile (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context should be provided on who applied the term "pogrom" to the Amsterdam events. The earliest tweet I have seen with that word is this one by Likud member Boaz Bismuth, posted at 02:39 CET. Israeli media COL Live titled “Pogrom in Amsterdam: Muslim Mob Attacks Israelis After Game” more or less at the same time, and the Wikipedia article Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam was created at 04:42 CET. All this, if I have the chronology right, is prior to Halsema's statement, who therefore merely acknowledged that the word "pogrom" was being used and expressed understanding, without embracing it herself. --Hispalois (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She may not have been aware of that, though. Her point is that her comments were weaponised. Lewisguile (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 November: kankerjood

A Maccabi supporter was also chased into the canal and forced to yell "Free Palestine",[FN1] [FN 2] while bystanders chanted "kankerjood" ("cancer Jew"). [FN3] [FN4]
Footnote 4 does not substantiate that bystanders shouted "kankerjood". Instead, it highlights the ambiguity of what the video actually shows: "Another widely shared video depicts a man in a canal. This footage is accompanied by various claims: that it shows an Israeli fan who jumped into the canal and caused a disturbance, or an Israeli tourist who was pushed into the water. Another interpretation suggests that it features Jewish fans who leapt into the canal while fleeing."
Footnote 3 does does indeed substantiate the shout: "Further footage shows someone swimming in a canal — possibly after being pushed in. Bystanders can be heard shouting 'Kankerjood' ('cancer Jew')."
That said, here is a link to the video (Instagram). The Jerusalem Post also refers to this post. The alleged shout does not feature in the footage. Neither the other cited sources nor the Jerusalem Post report such a statement. While it is possible that this is an abridged video version, I was unable to locate a longer one. Would this suffice to remove the claim? Alternatively, it could be phrased more cautiously: "According to AT5, 'Kankerjood' ('cancer Jew') was shouted during the incident."
I also think the first sentence should be phrased more cautiously.
Thoughts? DaWalda (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution would make sense, I think. I've changed it for you. Re: "the first sentence", do you mean of this section or of the article itself? Lewisguile (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the main clause, sry :) "A Maccabi supporter was also chased into the canal and forced to yell 'Free Palestine',". This is because, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Source 4, it is unclear what exactly is shown in the footage. (That said, I’ve reviewed a few additional sources, and the interpretation that it was indeed a Maccabi supporter driven into the canal appears to be the majority interpretation.) DaWalda (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Lewisguile (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A longer version video is available here, someone yells "kankerjood" pretty loudly while someone else is cackling.
If it's confirmed in RSP it's a good reason to search a little deeper. Scharb (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing condemnation of antisemitism and anti-Palestinian racism in the lede

There has been a bit of back and forth deletion and reversion in the lede over this sentence: "The attacks on Israeli fans were widely condemned as criminal and antisemitic by Amsterdam mayor Femke Halsema, Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof, King Willem-Alexander, and several international leaders." This started with @Lewisguile, who summarised: If we list all the people making these comments, we should do the same for the people noting anti-Palestinianism, and then it would get really long. I see that @Scharb and @M.Bitton have re-added and re-removed since then.

I want to agree with @Lewisguile that it would be reasonable to add the most prominent/representative condemnations of anti-Palestinianism in the lede, and disagree that it would necessarily make it too long. Other things are in the lede, far less prominent or important to our topic than this. Hopefully we can agree a way forward on this basis? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do that, although I think it's probably enough to leave the attributions out, since we detail them in the responses section. For example, Halsema later says her words were used to criticize Dutch Muslims, so do we mention her twice or do reword the whole thing to take account of that? I can see why people want to leave it in (it's an appeal to authority, I guess), but will the average reader care if it was the king in particular who said something, or will they only care to know that people condemned what happened broadly? At that point in the article, I don't think they need that info.
But it would be good to check consensus among other editors, to see if there's any strong feelings to keep the names in. Lewisguile (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Halsema's reaction is too nuanced to summarise, and given the discussion above, it seems contradictory to discuss including in the lede the Amsterdam mayor's second thoughts about her own reaction to the events, while at the same time removing from the lede the sparsest details about other prominent reactions to the events. (For the record, I'm fine with including both, although I still think that references to the minute of silence in the stadium should be our first port of call if the lede is too long.) Samuelshraga (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Halsema's comments are now fully explained in the lede, so we do know that she made those comments and why she retracted them. But the lede is now much longer to cover the nuance of what she said. I honestly think the version as I edited it yesterday (amended by Daniel with the comment about misinformation removed) was better because it didn't start getting into this level of detail. This is always where the problems start, because people can't agree on which particular details should go in, which is why I initially opted for fewer.
Re: the second paragraph of the lede, it currently also details the comments about this being a targeted attack on Israelis, plus the nature of some of those attacks, and the emergency flights. I think that particular paragraph is finely balanced as is and wouldn't amend it.
So, let's say we're adding stuff to the final paragraph of the lede. Are we adding Halsema, Schoof and the King to the antisemitism comments? For the anti-Palestinianism comments, shall we add Halsema, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Palestinian Football Association? Lewisguile (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and tried to combine the above issues and the pogrom comments into a new version of the third paragraph of the lede here. I moved up Halsema's comments to sit between the condemnations of the antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism, since that makes the most sense in terms of flow. I've also noted who said what, and left the report from authorities as the closing word of the lede for now, since that seems the most balanced and authoritative (e.g., it includes info from police investigations, so it's not just the view of politicians). I think this is much stronger and should incorporate most of what others wanted. Let me know what you think, @Samuelshraga, @XDanielx, @Scharb and @M.Bitton. Lewisguile (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved in my opinion. I do think we can now take out the subsequent line:
"A report released by the Amsterdam authorities four days after the riots described the causes as "a poisonous cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior and anger about the war in Palestine and Israel and other countries in the Middle East", placing blame both on the antisemitism of those who attacked Maccabi fans and the provocations and violence of Israeli hooligans."
Everything in it is already covered in the lede (other than the fact that the Amsterdam authorities said it in a report). Obviously still important in the body. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree there. That last line should stay. Please self-revert. Lewisguile (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there. The line should not be reverted. Kire1975 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975 & @Lewisguile No problem - didn't realise that one would be controversial. I'm not dead-set against that line, I just don't think it adds anything and that the lede was getting a little long. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Thanks for reverting. I think it's helpful because it is based on multiple sources such as police reports and is non-partisan, unlike most of the comments. Lewisguile (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I agree with you. The line should be gone. It is redundant, overlong, undue and controversial. Kire1975 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is not real. "toxic cocktail" is reported on and paraphrased in the three citations used, see here, here and here. It's controversial and not notable enough for the lead. I have removed it. Kire1975 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to show it's not real? As you say, three sources have reported on it otherwise, and you've not shown us anything to contradict it. Is it purely a translation issue? Lewisguile (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by not real, it's a translation right? Would you prefer a different translation like the "toxic combination" one?
I thought the quote was balanced, and I don't really see the controversy? One of the sources you mention says Jewish groups, however, dispute that interpretation of the city's report, but I don't see controversy about the general framing of the event expressed in that quote?
The current lede is a bit lacking in neutrality, with a WP:FALSEBALANCE between provocative behavior and actual violent attacks. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much like Daniel, I think the quote was important because it was fair and accurate. Unlike other sources mentioned, it isn't partisan and it represents its own form of consensus from the Amsterdam authorities. Lewisguile (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that sentence I added needed to be "balanced" out, when I had added it to provide balance and context for the paragraph-long anti-Israel content that follows it. Scharb (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's currently no evidence this report is untrue? I have re-added a trimmed version of the text on that basis, as it was cited and @Kire1975 hasn't yet indicated why it's incorrect. Because their comments suggested it might be the translation itself (and specifically the "toxic cocktail" part), I have removed the directly quoted text and left a summary. I switched the shorter mention from the "Responses" section for the longer version previously in the lede, meaning it's now just an extra sentence in the lede. I think this should be satisfactory for most people. Lewisguile (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase a poisonous cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior and anger about the war in Palestine and Israel and other countries in the Middle East does not exist in the sources cited. Kire1975 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having rechecked the sources, it does indeed exist in those sources. I think that over subsequent edits, some of the sources perhaps got shuffled or deleted, but the CBC and Amsterdam council links have been there the whole time. The exact wording we previously had is given in the following sources:
This definitely justifies using the quote as it originally was, although I am happy to leave it as it is (i.e., paraphrased) unless others feel strongly that it should go back in. Lewisguile (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an updated line about the report here to address issues raised by Samuel. The direct quote has gone back in, our explanation of what that shows has stayed out, and I've added a clause about the report's condemnation of violence against minorities in general (since it mentions Jews, Muslims, Palestinians and "other minority groups" at least twice). I think this is a fair reflection of secondary sources without overinterpreting the primary source itself.
The reason I think this report should stay in the lede is that it's from the police and chief prosecutor, so it is more relevant than any comment by, say, the king (whose views are also mentioned in the lede), and at least as relevant (if not moreso) than comments by national politicians. Lewisguile (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halsema wrote the report 6 days before she said she was not aware of the Maccabi fans' behavior. The report in question is "politicized to the point of propaganda" in the author's own words. If it stays in, it should at least be placed chronologically before the Mayor's expression of regret. Kire1975 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, she didn't say this particular report was "politicised to the point of propaganda"; she said her original use of the word "pogrom" was. She used that word right at the beginning, on 7 November, not four days later. If you read the English translation of the report of the 11th, the word "pogrom" doesn't appear anywhere within it.
I also don't quite understand why you've added a "needs attribution" tag when there is attribution right there in the statement. If you read the English version of the letter, those words are all verbatim from there. The authors are listed at the end. Lewisguile (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will changing the attribution from "the mayor's office released a report by..." to "Halsema published a report compiled with..." specifically allay your issues? That covers how RSes describe the authorship of the report (I've added the Guardian as another source). It's not entirely clear in the report itself, because it opens by saying all three of them reject violence used as a response to violence, but it ends saying "on behalf of..." the chief prosecutor and chief of police. Which suggests the bulk of the report is by the police chief and chief prosecutor and only that statement in the opening definitely comes from all three of them (though you could also read it as saying the intro and conclusion are from all three of them, or that the whole thing is). RSes tend towards the last option—that all three of them are the authors, so that's what I've changed it to for now. Is that better? Lewisguile (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a quote in the attribution needed tag. "condemned racist violence against minority groups" could mean Jews, Arabs, Moroccans, Pakistanis or Chinese. It is not "verbatim" in any of the documents. Kire1975 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reusing a citation more than once is extraodinary. Reusing it more than once in the lead is exceptional, per MOS:LEADCITE and MOS:INTRO. Reusing it in the same paragraph is redundant. You used this same inline citaion twice in the same sentence in the lead with no alterations. If it is indeed in the document "verbatim", you should have no problem adding the quote to the citation so there is no controversy. Kire1975 (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That bit is paraphrased from the following:

  • "These incidents affect not only Jews but also, increasingly, Muslims, Palestinians, and other minority groups. We abhor all these forms of violence and are doing everything possible to combat them."
  • "Many Jewish Amsterdammers also despise the increased racism and intolerance toward other minorities. Feelings of insecurity and marginalization prevail among all minority groups in Amsterdam. Amsterdam belongs to all of us, and the rule of law is for everyone."
  • "We emphasize that antisemitism cannot be answered with other forms of racism: the safety of one group cannot come at the expense of the safety of another."

Seems pretty clear to me. I'm not sure what the problem is.

I referenced it multiple times because you keep saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, even when provided with multiple sources. Your objection has also shifted multiple times since this discussion began—from "that's not a real translation" (it was) to "the politicians are biased" (this was also from the police, and I wanted all the politicians, the king, etc, removed from the lede but we came to a consensus and I lost that fight) to "Halsema retracted this" (she didn't) to "this one clause isn't a direct quote" (it's paraphrased, but it was previously the "toxic cocktail" part you objected to, so that's why I was talking about that specifically) to "you're using too many sources" (when previously you said it wasn't sourced at all).

At the risk of this becoming circular, it might be a suitable time to let this thread die? No one else is currently objecting, we have consensus to include who said what in the lede (including this current statement), and there don't seem to be any policy-based reasons left for your continued objection. Lewisguile (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of the officials who have made statements in the response section have expressed remorse [Halsema] or have been found to have been shown to be biased [Schoof]. Claiming them to be "authorities" in the lead while making a both-sides statement is not noteworthy or encyclopedic. Kire1975 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile I think "Amsterdam authorities" is vague, and when I read it I assumed it was from the police. Looking at the source, it seems to be from the Amsterdam city council, so I will specify that in the sentence. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the German source it says "von Stadt, Polizeichef und Staatsanwaltschaft", and in the CBC source it says "a report released by the mayor's office earlier this week, compiled with significant input from police investigators" and "addressed to council members". Is there a way of resolving this without being vague? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say it was the council, but informed by reports from the police. So it's probably accurate to keep it as authorities, but I wouldn't mind "the council and police" or similar. Lewisguile (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to those RSes, the report is from the city itself. I.e., the council, based on police reports and their own assessment of events. Do you have specific sources to suggest otherwise? Lewisguile (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just the sources linked to in the article:
To be clear, I speak no Dutch and I wouldn't rely on my German either. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added some new sources saying the same, including the report itself and the NYT. See upthread.
The bit about "addressed to council members" is logical, since the council executive (mayor, other higher ups) would probably have written it with the input of local experts (and the police), and then presented it to the rest of the council. This is standard practice and doesn't contradict claims that it came from the city/authorities/council+police. Lewisguile (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction, the letter is signed by Halsema but is sent "On behalf of Chief Prosecutor René de Beukelaer and Police Chief Peter Holla". So this is actually a police summary which the mayor sent to council members. No doubt she signed off on it (literally, in fact), but the most accurate statement might be "a report from the Chief Prosecutor and Police Chief, shared with councillors by Halsema" or similar.
Other important tidbits in there include various meetings with Jewish and Muslim groups, contact with UEFA and the Israeli foreign office, reiteration of the Kristallnacht anniversary as important, and ongoing threats to Jews and Muslims in the city after the events concluded. It also says other minorities are worried as well. All here in the English version of the report: https://assets.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/1060864/council_letter_11_novermber_2024.pdf Lewisguile (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So going back to the content, now that I've looked in more detail at the linked articles, I am more concerned about the sentence in our lede and whether we over-interpret the sources. At the moment, our implication is that the report equally condemns and blames both sides.
It's also not clear to me whether our sources on the report back this implication. I still don't think the report adds anything too much (we cover both behaviour of Israeli fans and people who attack Israeli fans earlier in the lede. We also cover people who condemn both.) So I return to my earlier position that I think we should strike this sentence from the lede, and cover the report where brevity is less at issue in the main body of the article. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is how RSes interpret it, really. I still think the police chief and public prosecutor trumps all the other sources (e.g., the king who has a largely ceremonial role!). So if we're keeping those in, we should definitely keep this in.
As such, I've gone in and re-added the original direct quote and removed the bit that I thought was unnecessary ("blaming the antisemitism of the attackers...") and which is probably also the bit that's, as you say, "overinterpreted" by us. Instead, I've ended it on the clear condemnation of violence against minorities in the report itself. See what you think of the new edit here. Lewisguile (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a lot of work! I think your edit is an improvement and I'm fine with it as is. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm pleased it works for you too. Hopefully it works for others, too. Lewisguile (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975, I've put "all minority groups" in speech marks from the quote above. You should probably remove the "attribution needed" tag now, unless you can cite another policy-based reason for why you still think this isn't attributed (despite the multiple sources). Lewisguile (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 'quote needed' is not an available template. You can offer an appropriate substitute, or just add the quote that you keep saying is there "verbatim". Kire1975 (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally have, as I just explained. So if there's now a direct quote, you're agreeing that we can remove the tag? Lewisguile (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Dutch translation for this page.

I am quite astonished by this. There is even a Frisian translation.

Would someone care to start/help out with the page? BrightSunMan (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a major oversight! I hope you can get some people to help. Lewisguile (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile: you said it. When are you starting? M.Bitton (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could speak Dutch! The best I could do is run it through Google Translate. Lewisguile (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed for not being neutral (see here). Might be for the best, it might be better to wait until more information is known. Dajasj (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultras

Can someone confirm that "Ultras" are mentioned in the Frankfurter Allgemeine article please? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I can't read the full article, unfortunately. I'm not sure who added that phrasing either, as I think it just said "supporters" before (though other reports do mention the Maccabi Fanatics specifically). It would be good if we can find out whether that term is accurate, as it could be non-neutral (either way, depending on how you read it) if it isn't sourced. Lewisguile (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede needs balance

Whilst most of the sections as a whole are balanced (or at least consistent with MSMs interpretation of it) it needs further work. Reading it gives the impression that all the violence after the match is by locals on on Maccabi fans, whilst the only large scale attack caught on video was the reverse. The Leede also states "After the match, Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were ambushed and assaulted across the city" which may be true, but the reference uses the Israeli embassy on X as an original source. Surely there's a more credible source? The article as a whole could benefit by using more reliable and balanced views which emerged over the past week rather than referencing material published soon after the event, much of which we know now was misleading, and some of it was entirely wrong. Andromedean (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official report from the police says small groups and individuals were set upon in surprise attacks by groups of men, or by individuals on bikes and in taxis. That fits the definition of ambushes. I think we've spent a lot of time discussing neutrality in this article, so it seems as finely balanced as it could be to me. I suspect there are plenty of people who feel the exact opposite as you do, too (i.e., that it's too biased the other way). Lewisguile (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the police report I suggest you reference it, but we can't use an American news channel which cites not their view, but what the Israeli embassy on X says. Andromedean (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in the lede (and elsewhere in the body). The last paragraph of the lede details an official report written by the mayor, chief prosecutor and police chief. It's reference #35, I think. Lewisguile (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is WP:NOTFORUM. If you have WP:RS you'd like to add, to keep it balanced or anything else, be WP:BOLD and make the edits. This kind of talk on the talk page is unneccesary. Kire1975 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2024_Amsterdam_riots&oldid=1259850344"