Talk:Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

On 8 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. The result of the discussion was merged, as article already existed.

See other article created on the topic: November 2024 Amsterdam attacks

There is another article on the attacks in Amsterdam: November 2024 Amsterdam attacks Another editor, GrabUp, reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left me a comment on my User page: "There is already another article about this, Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam."

I wrote editor GrabUp back:

Man, I worked really hard to find another article first, before creating [ November 2024 Amsterdam attacks ]. I did over a half dozen Wikipedia searches, and nothing came up. So figured I'd just stub out a new article, following normal policy (notability, verifiability, nothing undue or too likely to show a POV, etc.)

Welp, the content will clearly have to be merged. But I think that the title I chose is the far more neutral one.

I'll just leave it to others to figure out the best title, and propose a Merge to whatever title you think is best. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the title is disputed; I'm in favor of a merge due to similar text in the articles. Nevertheless, because the topic is of significant news coverage, I've submitted an In the news candidacy which may need some modification. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 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: merged, as article already existed. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam → November 2024 Amsterdam attacks – The title ‘November 2024 Amsterdam attack’ is much more neutral than this one, and the article is also neutral per WP:NPOV. Therefore, I request merging this article into ‘November 2024 Amsterdam attack’ and redirecting this title to that article. GrabUp - Talk 05:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp: Why not simply blank this article and redirect it to the article currently at November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, and then expand that article? Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar: If the author agrees, that would be best! @Oleg Yunakov. GrabUp - Talk 05:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp & @User:N2e: I don't think there's anything to merge other than a few quotes. This article is almost a borderline hoax and has a strong POV. If reliable sources don't describe this as "mass pogroms", how can we do so in WP:WikiVoice? Who are we quoting when we use the term "pogrom"? The way this article is structured makes it appear as though dozens may have been killed in the "terror attack", and Danny Danon's quote "we are receiving very disturbing reports of extreme violence against Israelis and Jews on the streets of Holland. There is a pogrom currently taking place in Europe in 2024." further strengthens the idea that people are being massacred across Holland. I was a bit stunned the first time I read this article to be honest, and had to check online to see what was going on. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw the request move and do a bold move? GrabUp - Talk 05:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I disagree with the continuation of this article and think it should be redirected to November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, ignoring when the original article was created. So I'd wait on the bold move for now. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be for the best. -- haminoon (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its not that there are no reliable sources are not calling it pogrom,

its that once a source call this pogrom then the source is no longer reliable,

here is example of sources that are not reliable:

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828103

"'We were ambushed': At least ten injured, three missing in Amsterdam pogrom"

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/artc-at-least-10-israeli-soccer-fans-wounded-3-missing-in-amsterdam-pogrom

"At least 10 Israeli soccer fans wounded, 3 missing in Amsterdam 'pogrom'"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2y33ee1klo

"Israeli President Isaac Herzog spoke of a "pogrom" against Maccabi fans and Israeli citizens"

https://www.reuters.com/world/israels-pm-aware-very-violent-incident-against-israelis-amsterdam-his-office-2024-11-08/

"Israel to collect soccer fans from Amsterdam after apparent antisemitic attacks"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-antisemitism-envoy-attacks-in-amsterdam-terribly-reminiscent-of-classic-pogrom/

"US antisemitism envoy: Attacks in Amsterdam ‘terribly reminiscent of classic pogrom’" 109.64.104.168 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you then disagreeing that this should not be merged into the November 2024 Amsterdam attacks? Please take some time to review policy, starting at WP:TITLE and WP:DESCRIPTOR and WP:NCENPOV, especially that last one, when it comes to if "pogrom" belongs in the title of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the JPost article, the other sources use quotation marks when referring to the attacks as a pogrom. This does not represent a consensus among reliable sources to refer to the attacks as a "pogrom". "its that once a source call this pogrom then the source is no longer reliable" -- I do not believe that is the case. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should a merge be feasible, otherwise I see no problems with Redirecting this article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has RS referenced text and quotes not in the other article, so at minimum I think such material should be merged, such as the antisemitism discussion .. and btw the number arrested is now 57. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, the text in the two articles have overlapping text (and one is EC'ed due to WP:ARBPIA) I strongly support merging the content. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also incredibly nonspecific. A pogrom is a specific variety of pre-meditated antisemitically motivated attack, and as such, is a more appropriate title for the article. Eblashko (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with boldly merging this into the other article and placing a redirect for now. But honestly I think that due to WP:RECENT this redirect will be up for deletion within months. TiggerJay (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp -- ping you, sounds like there is enough consensus for you to move it. TiggerJay (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay: So, should we blank this article and redirect it, or what do you recommend? And what about the closure of this RQ move? GrabUp - Talk 08:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp, what about the attribution? ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which attribution are you referring to? If you are talking about the ‘Courses of Events’ section, I would note that these statements are not copied into the main article: Israeli politician Danny Danon said, “We are receiving very disturbing reports of extreme violence against Israelis and Jews on the streets of Holland. There is a pogrom currently taking place in Europe in 2024.”, Pro-Palestinians violently attacked Israeli football fans; at least 10 of those attacked were injured, and at least three were missing. Some attackers shouted, ‘Free Palestine.’, and The New York Times reported, “Israeli and Dutch officials described [the attacks] as antisemitic attacks.” and certainly can copied if consensus wants. GrabUp - Talk 08:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution of this article in the page history. Nevertheless, a redirect is okay and would preserve it regardless. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp --- actually let me pause for a moment here... I might have been hasty. While I do believe that right now it is not contested and there is a lot of overlap and good cause to merge it into the other article, I did realize that @Oleg Yunakov has not even had the opportunity to see this post and provide his insight, otherwise I would say it seems uncontested even though it technically would be a very short merge request discussion timeframe. That being said, I think that if he doesn't have a problem, then probably simply pinging an active, uninvolved editor familiar with WP:RMCLOSE would be the technically correct route to go. TiggerJay (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with bold merge. There are some difference in sources but I don't see anything different in terms of content, aside from noticeably excess direct quotations in this side. Juxlos (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the bold merge. The title should be clear that these attacks took place in 2024. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8 § Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam until a consensus is reached. -- haminoon (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article (Read the desc)

Reasons

The Main article here: November 2024 Amsterdam attacks
The attacks is a singular violent incident, not more than one
The article is more vulnerable to vandalism and unreliable
178.81.55.110 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the article? There is a merge/redirect proposal ongoing. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDly remove the PROD, so we can focus on the MERGE discussion above that will likely satisfy the first two points. The third point is hardly a reason to delete an article. TiggerJay (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean by the last point that the article is not protected in that one article is protected, which is the original, but some users enter articles that are duplicates of the original, as those duplicate articles are not reliable because of people trying to impose a different opinion. Also, this is not a side article, it is the same (November 2024 Amsterdam attacks). But it is okay to redirect the article under different titles. 178.81.55.110 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources calim, that is was planned and coordinated. 2.204.142.23 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes from NYT report

User:Fram - The New York Times, in an article supplied as a reference, states "Israel’s Foreign Ministry said at least 10 Israeli citizens had been hurt in the violence and two others were missing."[1] 184.153.21.19 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But more recent information from the Amsterdam police, as reported by e.g. VRT, contradicts this. Just like the 2 rescue flights turn out not to have happened, and just like it turns out that no one is missing. Why should we keep outdated information? Fram (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article was updated under 40 minutes ago. Even that VRT article indicates that Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said 10 Israelis had been injured. So it's not a "more recent" issue - nor even a "which is the more reliable source" issue. It's not an issue of it being outdated. We can add to what Israel says what the Amsterdam police have reported (and it's not even clear who reported their number more recently) - which is what VRT does; it does not pick and choose between the two. As to missing; the recently updated NYT article still reports that two are missing, while the VRT article simply does not touch on the subject either way. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Er werden een aantal mensen voor vermist opgegeven, maar die zijn ondertussen opnieuw terecht. " Fram (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT, updated six minutes ago: "The police in Amsterdam said in a statement on Friday that ... five people had been hospitalized ... Israel’s Foreign Ministry said at least 10 Israeli citizens had been hurt in the violence and two others were missing.... The police did not comment on the reports that people were missing."[2]

Remember it is not essential that this is maintained up-to-date minute by minute as new information is released. Origional Research and/or Synthesis is not what we're looking for, we aren't even necessarily interested in The Truth, but rather what can be Verified by Reliable Sources. Any update to the article can wait until such information can be located. Towards that end, if two reliable news sources have a published or modified date within even an hour of each other, does not necessarily mean the more recent article is the more accurate one. I would actually be in favor of completely omitting injury, fatality and missing information completely until a few days have passed. WP is not a news station/outlet. Rather we are more about being encyclopedic, and thus are more interested in preserving verifiable fact, versus live updates. TiggerJay (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Fram was the one who suggested that the more recent information was what impelled his edit. See his first entry above. I was simply trying to address his view as to what should drive the inclusion of information. But even aside from that, as pointed out above, the two sources were not as he believed, contradicting each other. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]