Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam riots

Requested move 9 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Thank you to all that have kindly hatted ARBECR violations. While a large majority of participants made well-reasoned arguments, a stronger argument was made for "riots" over "attacks". More arguments said that "riots" was being used more frequently in Dutch and English media and was WP:NPOV, compared to those that argued that "attacks" was the WP:COMMONNAME. There was no clear consensus to remove "November", so I have left it for potential discussion in a future RM. There was also a rough consensus against "football". I didn't see much particular arguments particularly for or against "riot" vs "riots", but chose "riots" to be more consistent with other articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster (Chat) 05:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Weak support - I think "football riots" might be misleading, because it was not really related to the football itself. I mostly focus on Dutch media coverage: "Riots" ("rellen") appears to be pretty common[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)

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

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

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

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

It's difficult to comment on what WP:COMMONNAME is because nobody has provided English-language sources. However, Google Trends indicates that "attack" is consistently more common than "riot".[4] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think so, although it is hard to precisely and objectively measure. Here is a global Google search term comparison which seems to show 'riot' is used more: [5] Mason7512 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The comparison by Chess ([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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• We should also consider not having a WP:POVNAME. "Amsterdam attacks" implies one side was doing all the attacking, while we do have RS that point out both sides partook in the clashes. Thus something like "riot" or "clashes" is more neutral. Sources say,
  • "police chief Peter Holla told reporters that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had attacked a taxi driver and burned a Palestinian flag"[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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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

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

Seems to me like a !vote for "riots" only, but good to be crystal clear. Lewisguile (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTAFORUM

Enough of this bothsidesism and DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence. The newsworthy thing was that random people were attacked in the street for being Jewish by 500 organized masked men demanding passports. Racist chants at soccer matches are barely encyclopedically noteworthy. Antisemitic chants at soccer matches certainly never have been, and have never resulted in Jews hunting and beating people in the streets. Scharb (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Scharb (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Are you accusing me of a "DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence"? Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC) @Bitspectator Not you, I'm referring to the major DARVO attempt by pro-Palestinians on social media, and many editors seem to be have been influenced by it/are perpetuating it. There is never an excuse to demand passports and beat people up if they're from the "wrong country," the videos should horrify every human being, as there is no context that could justify them, and I caution the WP community not to lose sight of that. Like how we report the Holocaust, we don't give equal weight to the deniers or the justifiers. Scharb (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Okay. It really seemed like that comment was directed towards me. I said: There was physical violence in both directions. and you replied by saying: Enough of this bothsidesism and DARVO attempt to justify Antisemitic violence. When you say there is a: major DARVO attempt by pro-Palestinians on social media, and many editors seem to be have been influenced by it/are perpetuating it should I take that I am one of those editors? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTAFORUM

Let's say there were 2 kids at school. A pulled B's hair and called him names. B responded by breaking A's arm, concussing him and sending him to hospital. The 2 can't be compared in any way shape or form. No one is denying the poor behavior of the Israeli fans but their chants and pulling down flags can't be compared what they were on the receiving end of. They were attacked and thus this is what the article should be called. What the Israeli fans did wouldn't be sufficient for an article. What they were on the receiving end of is. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC) These are adults chanting genocidal songs. What kind of human would say such a thing about the Gaza children? M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC) You should have added that to the comment above it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC) A lot of content on Wikipedia would not justify their own articles. Inclusion is not based on that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I would leave football out for that reason. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "the language of the unheard" Scharb (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  the majority of the good faith sources refer to the act as bidirectional Kire1975 (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  What's new on Wikipedia! Seen this so many times before, this site is what a bunch of political one sided editors think is neutral but it's not. Hopeless. Now I won't spend too much time on this, though it makes me furious, but Ajax fans were totally and totally not involved in this. It happened when the match was long bye, and far away from the stadium. Anything else is just the usual biased excusing crap. AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

  That particular taxi driver did. There are multiple conflicting accounts of taxi drivers and/or their vehicles being attacked. But someone coming at your car with belts and/or metal bars still fits a definition of "attacked", even if it's not the definition. Then there are the doors that were kicked, people intimidated, etc.

  But let's say "attacks" is defined narrowly. I suppose that means you're also arguing against "attacks" in the title, since the situation is evidently more complicated than that? Lewisguile (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Here the NL press reports on the Maccabi fans involved in violence, as well as fans of Turkish club Fenerbahce: https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/binnenland/artikel/5479291/hooligans-van-maccabi-tel-aviv-amsterdam-slaags-met (this implies the violence was much more wide-ranging, and actually supports the idea of it being "football riots", at least in part)

  And here, confirming both Maccabi and Ajax supporters also beat people up, including a taxi driver (see above about how this suggests the involvement of multiple football clubs): https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/hoe-de-oorlog-in-het-midden-oosten-amsterdam-in-geweld-onderdompelde~b7d4494b/?referrer=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/

  The police chief confirms "fights on both sides", as reposted in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/08/israel-sends-rescue-planes-football-fans-reportedly-attacked-amsterdam

  This also suggests an Arab taxi driver was attacked: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-hooligans-provoke-clashes-amsterdam-after-chanting-anti-palestinian-slogans

  As does PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/police-investigating-what-led-to-violence-involving-israeli-soccer-fans-in-amsterdam

  This is actually also making me think football riots is probably more accurate than I initially realised. Lewisguile (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Chess: Yeah, @Lewisguile is correct, I support the move and either option is fine, though I prefer one over the other. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Sources for "attacks":

PBS: [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)

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

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

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

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

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

PBS:

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

CBS:

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

CNN:

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

NBC:

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

MSNBC:

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

AP News:

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

BBC:

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

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

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

If rioters can't be used to 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are two reputable Korean sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ARBECR

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

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

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

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

Support - per Drmies. Seems early reports were incorrect, should be clear football fans will riot Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support riot - per other users about earliest reports being incomplete. NHCLS (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

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)

The Maccabi fans. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

One of the suggested titles is "2024 Amsterdam riot" (without the word "football"). M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

What exactly do you oppose? The use of the word "football" or "riots"? M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Current title implies the violence was one-sided. Rainsage (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dazzling4 and WP:COMMONNAME. - Amigao (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  "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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Support – Wikipedia: article titles § Consistency – Pages that say "attacks" or "attack" are about things done by militaries or militants, using aircraft, explosives, firearms, or blades, e.g. Attack on Pearl Harbor, Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, 2024 Dagestan attacks, September 11 attacks. Pages about racially or religiously motivated street violence are mostly named "date - location - riot(s)" and most don't name a target, e.g. 2024 United Kingdom riots, 2023 antisemitic riots in the North Caucasus, July 2009 Ürümqi riots, 2005 Cronulla riots, 2002 Gujarat riots, Crown Heights riot, 1984 anti-Sikh riots (multiple Indian cities), 1947 Jerusalem riots, 1929 Palestine riots. The riots that name a target were both across multiple locations and very one-sided, the 2023 antisemitic riots in the North Caucasus might also need added detail to distinguish it from similar events like the 2022 North Caucasian protests against the war in Ukraine. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Good point. Lewisguile (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent point! --Hispalois (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support for riots: I was checking in other languages and it more consistent with "riots", at least in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turkish and German the consensus has been not to use attacks (even when some of the pages were a translation of the English one). German (Ausschreitungen = Riots), French (Affrontements = Controntations/Clashes), Spanish (Disturbios = Riots), Portuguese (Confrontos = Confrontations/Riots), Dutch ( Gewelddadigheden = street-Violence), Turkish (çatışmalar = Conflicts). AyubuZimbale (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a reason you've made two lines with a bold !vote? You've already commented to the same above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support Wikipedia in English is an outlier in calling this event an "attack" and is failing to apply its own policy Wikipedia: article titles § Consistency --Hispalois (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

References

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I strongly disagree there. That last line should stay. Please self-revert. Lewisguile (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree there. The line should not be reverted. Kire1975 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Toxic cocktail

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 wording we previously had is given in the following sources:

• The city itself: "The events of the past days stem from a toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism, and anger over the war in Palestine and Israel, and other countries in the Middle East..."
• CBC: "The events of the past days stem from a toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism and anger about the conflicts in Palestine and Israel..."
• The New York Times: "What happened over the past few days is a toxic cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior, and anger over the war in Palestine and Israel, and other countries in the Middle East..." (apparently quoting Halsema introducing the report rather than the report itself).

This definitely justifies using the quote as it originally was the updated quote, 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)

There's an updated line about the report here to address issues raised by Samuel. The direct quote has gone 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)

Which authorities?

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Just the sources linked to in the article:

• stadsbestuur from the Telegraaf in Dutch
• Stadt, Polizeichef und Staatsanwaltschaft from Zeit in German
• the mayor's office earlier this week, compiled with significant input from police investigators (they also say "addressed to council members" rather than written by them) from the Canadian public broadcaster

To be clear, I speak no Dutch and I wouldn't rely on my German either. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you. I'm pleased it works for you too. Hopefully it works for others, too. Lewisguile (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Attribution needed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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). _{Note: There was miscommunication going on because this thread turned into a wall of text.}

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Thanks. I suspect we're cross-posting a bit because we've been taking our time composing our responses. I appreciate your help with this. Lewisguile (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks or trying to organize the talk page discussion on this. I didn't even see the aspersion you cast about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT until a few minutes ago. You have to admit the whole thing is a massive WP:WALLOFTEXT.

As far as the moving goalpost accusation, that's wild. It looks like I created a new subheading to discuss the lack of clarity in the quoteless report citation, but it looks like you just addded several subheadings. There are multiple things to discuss here.

I'm also not sure about the formatting of the three quotes in one line in the citation that you recently thanked me for. The first and last quotation marks are replace with [ and ]. Bullet points cause an invisible character "line feed" error I don't understand. If anybody has any idea how to format that better, please take a look. Kire1975 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I realised afterwards that you probably couldn't see what I'd posted. In retrospect, I'll strike that comment. Do you want me to remove the subheaders I added here? I think it's still clearer without the headings just with the slight regrouping of text. That makes it look less like multiple new topics were started? Lewisguile (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's clearer with the subheaders. I just wasn't sure who added the first one. Doesn't matter now. Multiple topics were discussed. Sub-topics. Leave the subheaders. Kire1975 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I added all the subheaders under the main topic header. I tried to break them into the key issues, without orphaning any comments. I'll leave as is, then. People can see I added them if they check here (or the edit summaries) at any rate. Lewisguile (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

That seems a major oversight! I hope you can get some people to help. Lewisguile (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile: you said it. When are you starting? M.Bitton (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've taken the reference out quoting the Israeli Embassy statement. The following reference from NBC news "Israeli soccer fans attacked in Amsterdam" (currently number 11) covers the statement anyway.Andromedean (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Targeted versus attacked

Hey, @DolyaIskrina. I saw your comment and thought I'd explain a little: "targeted" was originally used there because we were trying to convey that these were planned/orchestrated attacks which targeted the Maccabi fans (i.e., it wasn't random violence). We didn't use "attack" there because it was used elsewhere; it wasn't to be euphemistic. I actually think your edit downplays the planning element a little, which is probably not what you intended. But maybe I've just read it too much, so if you're happy with it, then it's fine by me. I just wanted to let you know in case it had the opposite effect to the one you wanted. Lewisguile (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I see how target can connote a systemic indiscriminate plan to attack. But it also can mean "focus on" as in target an audience. I'm not sure.

I prefer jodenjacht or "Jew Hunt" but due to one source being paywalled and the other being in Dutch, I'm not sure if the jodenjacht term fits the chronology. Some editors claim it doesn't. But if we are going to say the Macobi fans said "death to Arabs" (with a link no less!), it seems fitting we would also say "Jew Hunt" from those who targeted Jews/Israelis. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We did previously have "Jew hunt" in there, but we ultimately removed it—partially for the reason you state, but also because it could have implied that was the primary reason for the attacks in all cases, when the authorities said the attacks targeted Israeli citizens and that local Jews weren't targeted (at least by that point; there was a false bomb threat on a synagogue in the days afterwards). I offered a compromise solution that said something like Plans to target Israelis, including some calls for a "Jew hunt", were circulated on messaging apps. but this was edited again as unnecessary/too long.

"Death to Arabs" ended up staying in because we couldn't get consensus on whether those slogans should be described as genocidal or not (and whether that would be in Wikivoice or not). Using the direct quote left that to the reader to decide for themselves. Elsewhere in the lede, we do use direct quotes to describe the actions of the local attackers, so I think it does balance out somewhat. It's a tricky one, though, because in the thread above someone else feels the lede is too biased towards the Israeli account, so for every change there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Re: attack v target, I've opted for the following which hopefully gets both points across (and removes the double use of "message/ing"): Plans to target Israeli fans for attack were subsequently shared through messaging apps. Hopefully that works for you. Lewisguile (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The end result is that the bad things some Maccabi fans did are expressed verbatim, and the bad things some of the attackers did are described vaguely. If some Israelis said death to arabs and that is notable, why on earth is it not notable that some attackers used a Nazi holocaust term? Whatever the path that got us here, where we have ended up is a not NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it's unbalanced. There are multiple details about what the local attackers did and the impact of this on their targets, also including some verbatim quotes:

• "actively sought out Israeli supporters to attack and assault them"
• the events were caused by a "toxic combination of antisemitism, hooliganism, and anger about the conflicts in ... the Middle East", and condemned racist violence against "all minority groups" (compare "antisemitism" versus "hooliganism")
• Individuals were shot with fireworks, physically assaulted, and spat on (detailing the attacks)
• Eight rescue flights were organized for the safe return of Israeli fans (severity of impact)
• The attacks on Israeli fans were condemned as antisemitic (balanced by a statement about anti-Palestinianism as well, but it's also made clear that international leaders joined in this condemnation while the condemnation of anti-Palestinianism was much more limited)
• Some commentators characterized the event as a pogrom (not given in speech marks but this is the exact word used by many, which is particularly strong)

However, since the last thread (complaining the bias was too much in the opposite direction) resulted in the belt attacks detail now being added, I have gone ahead and made some changes to keep it fair. I have removed the mayor's quote about targeting Israelis (mentioned above) but have reinserted the "Jew hunt" phrase here. Hopefully this will address your concerns without anyone else objecting, although I am happy to self-revert if others disagree and now think it's gone too far the other way. I think the NYT source does actually show that this phrase was used before the day of the match, so that addresses that concern now as well. Lewisguile (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that is an appropriate change, esepcially given that "Jodenjacht" is covered in so much of the RS. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Great. I am pleased. I think it's looking good too. Lewisguile (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)