Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam riots/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Media reporting section highlights religion of some commentators - inappropriately?

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

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

<<deleted due to WP:ARBECR>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The coverage is shifting as facts are uncovered. For example, the Amsterdam mayor's report now says injustice has been done to both Jews in our city as well as people of minorities who sympathise with the Palestinians.[1] The NBC subtitle for example says “Hit and run” attacks on Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters in Amsterdam and inflammatory and violent acts by some of the Israeli fans shocked and dismayed observers around the world.[2] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Reactions Other Countries

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

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

Support removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024 Paris attacks

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

Hmmm. A brief mention of further clashes in Paris may be okay in the "Aftermath" section, but I suspect that this probably belongs in an article about Israel–Hamas war protests in France, if such a page exists already. There doesn't seem to be enough info just yet to spin it off into its own unique article, but you could certainly start drafting such an article for when more info comes in. Lewisguile (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I definitely feel like an aftermath section should be created. In the meantime, I've added both incidents to the Israel–Hamas war protests page here and here. Kire1975 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

• What I think should be changed:

−

20–30 people sustained light injuries, including 10 Israelis. Five people were hospitalised

+

20–30 people sustained light injuries and Five people were hospitalised. 10 Israeli were injured according to Israeli officials

• Why it should be changed:

1. The source for the "10 Israelis" does not specify whether they sustained light injuries or were hospitalized. The current interpretation suggests they sustained light injuries
2. The "10 Israelis" figure is attributed to "Israeli officials." Perhaps adding the attribution could be omitted, as this does not seem to be a controversial detail (at least in my opinion).

• References supporting the possible change:

The current reference [3].

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I have already removed "including 10 Israelis", so this seems like it addresses your concern, too. We can always add "10 Israeli were injured according to Israeli officials" if we need to further down the line. Lewisguile (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Football attendees were explicitly not involved

Under 'Parties', it says 'Pro-Palestinian groups and football attendees', that latter is not true, the whole thing was, that before and during the match there were no problems between Ajax fans and Maccabi fans. This was not a football related attack. It had nothing to do with football. Ajax fans celebrated with Maccibi fans. Ajax fans themselves were fighting with pro Palestine protestors. The Ajax fans were either not involved or sided with Maccabi mostly.

https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1931198877/pro-palestijnse-demonstrant-gewond-na-aanvaring-met-ajax-supporters

AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is this in the article? Either way, the Maccabi fans were attendees too, so it may not be inaccurate depending on the context. Lewisguile (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, here goes the subjective wikipedia nonsense again. Well nobody cares anymore about your website anyway. Write nonsense down if you want. Nobody cares anymore. I really think Wikipedia is total crap. AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like... A strong reaction. I literally just asked you where in the article it was so I could take a look. As it happens, I figured out you probably meant it was in the infobox, so I've fixed it. If you want to retract your comment to save yourself some embarrassment, you can do so by deleting your reply or by adding {{Strike|original text here}} around your comment. I'll delete my comment afterwards too, if it helps. Lewisguile (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't take it personal! But I hate Wikipedia. I used to be involved, and write articles. Not anymore. Embarrassment, Wikipedia is an embarrassment as a whole, who cares?? AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Then change your password to something you won't remember and log out. Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, why quote the chief of police about street riots when you can quote the Dutch king or Geert Wilders. Basecam (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As it's the internet, I can't tell whether your comment was sarcasm or not, but I'll assume not. In which case, I think it's clear why the police chief is relevant—they would be the person investigating the incidents, whereas the king is just a figurehead whose role is largely symbolic and diplomatic. Geert Wilders, of course, has said some firmly right-wing things about immigrants, so doesn't represent the majority of Dutch people.

As I type this out, though, I'm becoming more and more sure you were being sarcastic. In which case, ignore me! This comment is for any others who didn't pick up on the /s. Lewisguile (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If we’re looking to replace this with more reputable sources, here is one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amsterdam-israeli-soccer-fans-violence-1.7383558

But a report released by the mayor's office earlier this week, compiled with significant input from police investigators, indicates it was Israeli fans who initiated the first attacks, which then spiralled. Yoshuawuyts (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Sanders' report in DDN

Richard Sanders has provided a report for Double Down News on the Amsterdam violence and the biased MSMs reporting of the event here. Perhaps there's some evidence in the video's shown which can be used to verify events? Andromedean (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Is DDN reliable? Seems like it's pretty mixed: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/double-down-news-ddn-bias/ Lewisguile (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The main relevance to Wikipedia in that report is this. Failed Fact Checks - None in the Last 5 years. Balance is left up the the Wiki editor to fix. However, Mediabiasfactcheck itself is deemed unreliable by RS. Andromedean (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well then you can always add the relevant content and see what others think. What do you think is useful in it? Lewisguile (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This whole anti-MSM approach will be problematic on Wikipedia considering MSM are generally considered reliable news sources, whereas most of the sources attacking their reporting are not. Advocacy organizations operating under the guise of "alt-media" should not be trusted more than corporate news companies that do not do advocacy and have multiple levels of oversight and editorial review. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

All media are biased in one way or another, but that's why we rely on multiple RSes to represent the consensus of experts. We're still yet to hear what may be useful about this video that would necessitate inclusion anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile Just a note for the future, WP:MBFC is classified as generally unreliable, so we should take its findings with a pinch of salt. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Always good to know. I saw someone link it upthread somewhere so assumed it was used here as evidence of reliability. Lewisguile (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And what's DDN's status? Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1 Can't find any mention of it, either in perennial sources or in the reliable source noticeboard archives.

With that in mind, it shouldn't be used for any exceptional claims & should probably, at most, only be used to corroborate other sources' reports if necessary.

The only exception I can think of (that would matter in this context) would be if they had an interview with a subject matter expert/significant public figure, then we'd directly quote that person with attribution to DDN.

TLDR: Seems WP:UNDUE, hope that helps. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, and in that case the RS would be the subject expert, not DDN. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we'd still have to cite where we got that info from, meaning we'd add an attribution to the quote like "In an interview with Double Down News, so & so said..."

Regardless, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so again, I'd currently say their coverage here is WP:UNDUE for inclusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And I would have to agree with you. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Lewisguile (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How is the Spanish flood relevant ?

Part 1

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

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

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

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

Dutch newspaper NRC says the stadium was mostly quiet, except for a small part of the Israeli supporters area.[4] Seems like we might be making it too big here Dajasj (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well, it wasn't by any means the most significant thing, but it was commented on by a large number of RSs in setting out the context and sequence of events.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The events took place amid heightened tensions related to the Israel–Hamas war in the city, where some Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had been filmed pulling Palestinian flags from houses, making anti-Arab chants such as "Death to Arabs", assaulting people, and vandalising local property. Calls to "Hunt Jews" were subsequently shared via social media the day before the match. Before the match began, some Maccabi fans also interrupted a minute of silence for the victims of the 2024 Spanish floods with chanting and whistles. Afterwards, Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were ambushed and assaulted in various locations across the city."

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

@Lewisguile Also, Berliner Zeitung pointed out that Spain joined the ICJ genocide case against Israel a few months ago [13]. Andreas JN466 23:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. There's a growing consensus among RSes that it's in relation to Spain's perceived pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli stance, so I think that is fine to stay in the body. I have added your source to the article too. Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging me. Well, for full disclosure, I’m Valencian myself, so I’m possibly biased, but I think their mocking of our 200+ dead should be included both in the body and the lede. It contributes to expose the moral turpitude and the vile, provocative behavior of the Maccabi thugs that caused the riot (because it was a riot, not an "attack") and it helps explain why the Spanish government was reluctant to condemn it: everyone saw how they insulted our dead and our mourning live on TV, and it was widely reported by Spanish media of all political persuasions as it happened (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.), as well as on social media, making it a political hot-wire. It was particularly painful because, when the Maccabi visited Valencia for a game shortly after the October 2023 Hamas attack, Valencians were extremely respectful and supportive.

Also, as you’ll easily understand, the Netanyahuist regime’s portrayal of the riot as a "pogrom" and of ourselves as "antisemitic" for not swallowing all this graciously didn’t make a lot of friends here, and neither did the Dutch and European authorities toeing their line and ignoring our mocked European victims. This might help explain and provide context for future events or developments in Valencia and/or Spain, regarding the Maccabi thugs, Israel, and/or the European Union or their current leadership. MaeseLeon (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Redundant addition

Some absolute numbskull decided to add a paragraph of totally redundant information at the end of the media coverage section on the mayor's reaction to the events. The mayor's reaction has already been excellently covered by @Lewisguile in the Response section. Worse, the new paragraph contains: "Speaking of the international press coverage of the events", when the sources specifically say that Femke Halsema is addressing other Dutch and Israeli politicians' reactions to the events. If someone could remove this inexplicable contribution, I'd be much obliged. Subject to the (apparently very strictly enforced) 1RR rule as I am, I am unable to do so myself. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now self-reverted the material, since I added it and, as you say, it's better covered elsewhere. Sorry if I've caused anyone any confusion! Lewisguile (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just going to check also this point raised by @Samuelshraga. Well, I dislike anyway when an editor refers other editor as "absolute numbskull". AyubuZimbale (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case, as the editor attacked, I'll forgive the personal attack. And as the attacking editor, I'll graciously accept that forgiveness. It's heartwarming. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I know that you linked to yourself page, but you are not an "absolute numbskull", please don't treat yourself like that. AyubuZimbale (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

CBC claims a clearer picture of what happened is emerging

They also seem to be the first to supply the sequence of events. It claims 'a report released by the mayor's office earlier this week, compiled with significant input from police investigators, indicates it was Israeli fans who initiated the first attacks, which then spiralled.' However, overall the article seems to blame both sides. Andromedean (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already included some of this in the Responses section. Feel free to add more elsewhere if you think it's needed. I know they give a more detailed timeline of the early events. Lewisguile (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Numbers injured in lede/lead

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

Technically, we know 20–30 Israelis were lightly injured and 5 were hospitalised. We don't know how many Amsterdammers were injured. I wouldn't object if you changed it though. Lewisguile (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, we actually don't know "20–30 Israelis were lightly injured and 5 were hospitalised", as the number 20-30 represents all injuries, not just Maccabi fans. I believe the same goes for those hospitalized, but I'm not as confident in that reading as I'm having issues confirming or denying if that is correct or not.

To be specific though, Israel themselves have only confirmed 10 Israelis to've been injured.

An additional 20 to 30 people suffered minor injuries. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said 10 Israelis were injured. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen varying reports. I had initially assumed the 20–30 was everyone but couldn't find that when I looked a few days ago, so went with "Mostly Israelis". Checking again now, I can see most say 20–30 (+5) total, while only a minority of older sources say that number was specifically the Israeli fans—notably this early report from the NYT. But the NYT got a few things wrong early on, and their newer coverage hedges this much more. Now they say: "Five people were taken to hospital injured — they were discharged on Friday — with as many as 30 more suffering minor injuries." Based on that, I think you're right. It would probably be best to outline the exact numbers in the lede. So, "20–30 people sustained light injuries, including 10 Israelis. Five people were hospitalised. 62 people were arrested, including 10 Israelis." I'll amend the lede as appropriate. Lewisguile (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede updated. I teased this thread out from the other one so it's easier to find. Lewisguile (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that change, it seems to be more balanced now. On the face of it, hospital casualties might seem to be a more evidenced way of attributing violence. However, even if the figures are accurate, we still need to be careful, since some groups might be eager to be counted as casualties, whilst others will be fearful of drawing the attention of the police. Andromedean (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tricky one. Hospitalisations are probably good for serious injuries (I think few people would avoid hospital for those), but less reliable for determining how many were injured overall. Lewisguile (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I think removing the Israeli foreign office figure is probably wisest for now? The sources are all over the place with this. My instinct is that this is all due to different media reading Reuters' initial press release differently and so all using slightly different wording. It's probably best to wait for some updated figures. Lewisguile (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said on 16 November that the nationality of the people treated in hospital was unknown [14]:

• Bis heute ist nicht klar, wie viele Menschen verletzt wurden, die Amsterdamer Behörden sprachen von 20 bis 30 Maccabi-Fans. Fünf Menschen mussten für einige Stunden im Krankenhaus behandelt werden – aber ob diese Menschen aus Israel stammen, wurde nicht gesagt, obwohl es in vielen Medien so dargestellt wird. Die Amsterdamer Polizei wollte sich auf mehr­fache Nachfrage der F.A.S. nicht dazu äußern.
• It is still not clear how many people were injured, but the Amsterdam authorities spoke of 20 to 30 Maccabi fans. Five people had to be treated in hospital for several hours - but it was not said whether these people were from Israel, although this is how it is portrayed in many media. The Amsterdam police did not want to comment on this when asked several times by the Frankfurter Allgemeine on Sunday.

Andreas JN466 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That suggests to me that the 20–30 people were Israeli, and the five hospitalised were probably Israeli too, but unconfirmed. There's WP:NORUSH, however, so I'm happy to wait for a few more sources to be specific here. At the moment, we have things pointing in both directions. Lewisguile (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Bobfrombrockley, I think you'll find that it's been implied not a few times. This comment for example comes very close to saying it explicitly: While they may have suffered the most damage, it’s important to remember that they also provoked the incident by chanting anti-Arab slogans, attacking an Arab taxi driver, and disrespecting the Palestinian flag. For over a week (in this article less than 2 weeks old), we carried the quote: "Were Jews attacked in the streets? Yes, but those Jews were also violent hooligans."

So forgive editors like @DolyaIskrina (and myself) who might seem a bit sensitive to this implication. Hopefully you'll see that it is not quite as rare as you or I might have hoped. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I still stand by the original decision, which was to quote "death to Arabs" or similar, and let the readers make up their own minds what chants like this mean. It might be more accurate to call such chants "incitement to violence" or "celebration of genocide" than merely "genocidal" anyway, and either way, someone is likely to see this sort of wording as controversial. A direct quote doesn't require further commentary and has the benefit of being fairly concise. Lewisguile (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile, I don't have a problem with the quoting of the chants here. I was responding to @Bobfrombrockley saying that Neither any editors on this talk page nor any version of the article has ever implied those chanting "Death to Arabs" were the same individuals who were attacked, so there is absolutely no issue here.

And by the way, here are a couple more, also from before Bob wrote his comment:

Here: No "attacks", but hooligans doing hooligan stuff and looking for trouble and finding it.

Here: It appears that the Maccabi fans were behaving very poorly beforehand in a way reminiscent of (racist) soccer hooligans, and were attacked largely for that reason.

I'm not having a go at you Bob, I just think that you missed why some editors have been a bit triggered by some of the discussion here and the page itself at times. Doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to Wikipedia:AGF (including about the people whose comments I've quoted), but assuming good faith doesn't mean we have to ignore the fact that there is a very real problem of people assuming the victims of the attacks were guilty of misbehaviour, and discussing/editing accordingly. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

.es, I think you were clear enough, don't worry II was adding to your comment. agree that people have made those claims, and pointing out that just including the chant is the best way forward since we can neatly avoid the debate about whether it is/isn't accurate/balanced to say "genocidal" in the first place. Lewisguile (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've had a look what sources there are:

• Het Parool has an opinion piece titled "Opinion: 'Every Maccabi fan should have thrown his scarf in the bin after the genocidal slogans over Gaza'". [15]
• Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (Dutch public broadcaster) quotes Dutch Denk (political party) politician Stephan van Baarle saying in the Dutch House of Representatives that "hypocritical politicians were silent as Maccabi thugs chanted racist and genocidal slogans about Gaza, vandalised Palestinian flags and attacked a taxi driver". [16] His statement is quoted by a good number of other Dutch outlets as well.
• The New York Times quotes van Baarle too: "Where were the police when Maccabi thugs chanted genocidal and racist slogans about Gaza?" [17]
• Trouw mentions in its live blog (15:37, 8-11-2024) a complaint from the Palestinian Authority that "genocidal chants" ("Genocidale gezangen tegen Arabieren en Palestijnen") preceded the attacks. [18]
• Middle East Eye says "The hooligans' mindset aligns with the genocidal culture that has permeated Israeli society since 7 October 2023". [19]
• The New Arab says, 'As reported by the Clash Report, the Maccabi fans, who were protected by police, “chanted anti-Arab slurs and a genocidal song in Amsterdam”, including lines such as “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left”, “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs” and “Fuck you Palestine”.' [20]
• The Times of Israel features a Clash report tweet speaking of a "genocidal song". [21]
• The Week (Indian magazine) says, "Meanwhile, unverified videos doing rounds on social media claimed Israelis allegedly chanting anti-Arabs slurs and genocidal songs about dead children in Gaza, even before the attacks began." [22]
• The Jerusalem Post reports that a French MP said Israelis "took up genocidal and pro-Netanyahu chants." [23]
• Anadolu Ajansı (state-run Turkish agency) quotes an Erev Rav member saying fans "sang racist and genocidal songs on public transportation". [24]

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

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

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

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

I would concur that it's not enough for WikiVoice but is enough for a mention. Even though most of these sources aren't using their own voice, they're still platforming the view that the chants were genocidal, indicating that it's a prominent view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we originally settled on just including direct quotes in the article, which is why the current wording (anti-Arab chants such as "Death to Arabs") is there. The rationale at the time was that this way, readers can make up their own minds. However, I would not object to anyone saying something like the chants were described by x, y and z as "genocidal", etc. It would probably need to be in a longer sentence/its own paragraph than the direct quotes, which are currently embedded within other, longer points because of their brevity. Lewisguile (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Which individuals' reactions are WP:DUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Lewisguile, in response to your request for specific quotes. with the DENK issue sorted, I think the first specific quote left in this section that I think are problematic are the Jelle Zijlstra one. Including the assertion that the Jews who were attacked are violent hooligans strikes me as totally unjustified. This is not a denial of hooliganism, even violent hooliganism, by some Maccabi fans. There were several thousand Maccabi fans present, and it seems several hundred subject to attacks, harassment and intimidation on the night of the football match. Are we actually going to repeat the claim, or at least the very strong implication, that all the Maccabi fan victims were violent hooligans? That no innocent football fans who just came to support their team were targeted? If the claim were made by someone who is themselves a significant voice, it would be one thing, but as it is I don't see how it can be borne.

The second quote that I think is problematic is the Jazie Veldhuyzen one - not that I think this quote needs to be removed, but the councilman's political affiliation should absolutely be made explicit (the term "radical left" is used here for BIJ1, and doesn't seem too value-laden to me).

Thirdly, you're right of course about questioning the motives of certain additions. Although... well suffice to say I will find it difficult enough to restrain myself that I think I'll disengage from this article for at least a few days. It's been a rabbit hole, but I thank you for being a consistent, reasonable contributor to this page. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I absolutely understand! It's a difficult time to be a Wikipedia editor at the moment but your contributions are valuable nevertheless. I'll take a look at those quotes and see what we can do for NPOV. I'll post a summary of any edits I make here afterwards, but I won't tag you so you can come back to check when you feel able (there's no rush). Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the Responses section here. Note that we have received more info now about the direct causes and context of the violence, so I've updated some other sections too. Lewisguile (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

You alone are fighting for more reactions, when many other editors agree that this is clearly WP:UNDUE Dazzling4 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We probably need a "one-in-one-out" policy for reactions. The RSes can stay in, but we can devote less space to direct quotes and just summarise the main points if two or more people agree. Lewisguile (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't frame it that way. I'm not ‘fighting’, and I don't like that some editors are targeting/pointing fingers at other editors. I have never done that, and I advocate freedom of discussion here for anyone. I was always open to discussions and in fact I thank several editors who deleted content I added when they explained well the reasons for their actions. Honestly, I look for content about reactions in the Netherlands and every single piece of content I added was backed up by references. On the other hand, it is false that ‘I am alone’, as other editors have repeatedly argued that including only ‘government’ statements can be a way to introduce bias and that reactions from civil society or other political parties is reasonable. Please instead of fingering other editors, try to discuss with references and I kindly remind you my statement: "Of course this can be debated to try to reach a consensus.", so I never tried to impose an specific point of view but discuss. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Agree with Lewisguile and AyubuZimbale that it is important to present a broad range of responses, including responses from local groups and residents. Andreas JN466 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding quotes such as Schwartz, we used her because her quote was more articulate and encompassing than similar commenters who made the same/similar points—the alternatives were less encyclopaedic in content. I think if we were to remove her, we'd have to add in someone like Asa Winstanley again, which is likely to be more controversial. There should be someone representing the critique of Sky News, at any rate, because there's been a huge response to their edited footage (even though I think they were probably playing it sensibly by editing the footage if there was any doubt about who was included).

Bear in mind that most quotes have also been edited and gained consensus over multiple days, so they've been pruned and trimmed as much as they can be without losing coherence. Lewisguile (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that I have edited the DENK quotation to get to the core point and remove the invective. That may look better to you now, @Samuelshraga? Since Wilder's comments were discussed as being weaponised, I've left similar comments of his in, as that felt more relevant. Lewisguile (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've brought this up in other threads and other editors agreed that the reactions section is completely undue. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that many others editors agreed that the reactions sections is needed. If you read just few lines above, for example, @Jayen466 commented "it is important to present a broad range of responses, including responses from local groups and residents.". Also there were other archived discussions about it. If you read also few lines above @Lewisguile "Bear in mind that most quotes have also been edited and gained consensus over multiple days". AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the responses section is fine now. If we were to cut anything, it should probably be the various politicians (and the king) who mostly say the same thing, since we can summarise and say "x, y, and z said...". But I think that most people would object to that anyway, in case it makes the responses look lopsided. I think leaving it as is is the best option.

At a push, we could move the fallout among politicians under "Aftermath". Perhaps by nesting "Legal" as a subheading under "Aftermath" (after "Media coverage"), with "Political" coming after that. That way, the "Aftermath" section is also even longer relative to the "Responses" section. Lewisguile (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A novel view was published in the Jerusalem Post today, by the way, by the Israeli right-winger Alon Davidi:

• Calling the attacks in the Dutch capital antisemitic is burying our heads in the sand - opinion, 18. Nov. 2024

Andreas JN466 23:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Interrupting my pause from this page after some engagement from @AyubuZimbale.

I already acceded that @Lewisguile was right to say I was too quick to imply something wrong with the motives of other editors, and while my comment opening this section wasn't aimed at any particular individual, I'd still like to say that I think that the content issues that I brought up could all have been better dealt with by keeping it in the terms of normal disagreement about content.

I haven't gone over @AyubuZimbale's every edit, but nothing I saw said that I should have treated it as more than a content dispute, or stopped WP:AGF. That's my bad, and I'm sorry. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, Samuel. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but it's water under the bridge from my perspective. Other editors will, I'm sure, speak for themselves. BTW, you can edit your own comments or you can strike them if you want to keep them up but still redact them. You can do the latter by using {{strike|original text here}}. Lewisguile (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Samuelshraga for your words. I also overreacted a bit. I appreciate both the comments of @Samuelshraga and those of @Lewisguile. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Regret over 'pogrom' claim

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

I think that this was added to the main text by other editor. I will add several of the sources you mentioned to support the international relevance of these declarations. But I am happy to discuss with other editors about it, and where is the best place to include this information. AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. Others have also said that how the event was covered played a part in increasing antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism. Lewisguile (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Hmmm. It's a tricky one, isn't it? I was trying to keep that sentence as neutral as possible, using "misinformation" instead of "propaganda", since the media coverage (and responses to that coverage) have played a significant part of the overall story. But on reflection, I can see why it's insufficient to use Halsema's comments alone to illustrate that. And using those comments then opens up another can of worms.

I'm happy to keep that line out for now. I also wouldn't be opposed to mentioning both her use of the word "pogrom" and what she saw as the "propaganda" that ensued afterwards, but I suspect that's likely to be contentious for someone, so I'm also happy if we park for that later. Doing it justice in just a few words would be tricky. Lewisguile (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks - I'm also not necessarily against some content about "pogrom" if editors feel it's okay to expand the lede, but yeah might need a few sentences to cover it well. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Shall we see if anyone else weighs in and otherwise pick it up later in the week? We can propose a couple of sentences here at that point, and then if we agree, put them in? I think it's do-able, but we will need to make sure we get some consensus beforehand to avoid a protracted debate. Lewisguile (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important information, particularly relevant to the content of the article, and worth the extra sentences. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to combine the two versions. See my comment here. I'm hoping this is broadly acceptable to most people, since it covers the main points but is still relatively short and keeps it all in context. Lewisguile (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda is the word used in at least five RS. I've added it back to the lead. Kire1975 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

A bluelink to Pogrom is plenty of context. Not sure what else you're waiting for. Kire1975 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Context about Halsema said - it's strange to cover her (sort of) retraction without context about her initial remarks. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Her initial remarks are included. Kire1975 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about the word pogrom though, until the sentence you added about her regretting that word. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Workshop

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

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

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

It's already in the lede, with one inline citation in the lede and four more in the body. The debate was triggered when pogrom was first used. The mayor's acknowledgment of regret is what makes it notable enough for the lede. Kire1975 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx I think your version is substantially better than what's currently in the lede. At the moment, the first mention of the word "pogrom" is to say that the mayor of Amsterdam regrets using it. That reads weirdly, the reader needs the context that this was a widely made but controversial historical reference in the aftermath of the attack to understand why:

a) the Mayor of Amsterdam made the remark at all

b) the Mayor of Amsterdam regrets making the comparison.

Samuelshraga (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to combine the two versions. See my comment here. Lewisguile (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

6 November: kankerjood

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

Attribution would make sense, I think. I've changed it for you. Re: "the first sentence", do you mean of this section or of the article itself? Lewisguile (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I meant the main clause, sry :) "A Maccabi supporter was also chased into the canal and forced to yell 'Free Palestine',". This is because, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Source 4, it is unclear what exactly is shown in the footage. (That said, I’ve reviewed a few additional sources, and the interpretation that it was indeed a Maccabi supporter driven into the canal appears to be the majority interpretation.) DaWalda (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Lewisguile (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

A longer version video is available here, someone yells "kankerjood" pretty loudly while someone else is cackling.

If it's confirmed in RSP it's a good reason to search a little deeper. Scharb (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)