Talk:Munich massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Symbol unsupport vote.svg

Munich massacre was nominated as a good article but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 14, 2006
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany / Munich  (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Germany.svg Germany portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Olympic Rings.svg Olympics portal
Munich massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-Class)
WikiProject icon
SanFranHouses06.JPG Disasters portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Israel.svg Israel portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Palestine.svg Palestine portal
This article is part of WikiProject Palestine a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-Class)
WikiProject icon
Star of David.svg Judaism portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-Class)
WikiProject icon
National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg Terrorism portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Crime (Rated B-Class)
WikiProject icon
Scale of justice 2.svg Criminal justice portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 5, 2005, September 5, 2006, September 5, 2007, September 5, 2008, and September 5, 2009.
Talk archives
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Archive 1

Contents


[edit] Use of the word terrorist

Wikipedia rules mandate that the word terrorist should generally be avoided as it carries usually negative connotations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERRORIST. I know people will complain about this, but Wikipedia rules state that terrorist has basically the same bias as the word freedom fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.153.16 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but these guys were terrorists. They murdered with deliberate intent Olympic athletes.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Missing: offer of hostage exchange

It should be mentioned that German federal minister of the interior Hans-Dietrich Genscher and bavarian state minister of the interior Bruno Merk offered themselves as hostages in exchange of Israeli hostages, but the hostage-taker declined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.224.50 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Broken Link

The link to an interview with the "mastermind" of the attacks is broken and needs to be removed or replaced: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/munich_mastermind 4.243.227.32 08:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A google search on the string "Munich Attack Mastermind Feels No Regret" finds several non-identical articles dealing with the death of the "mastermind". Several of those are obsolete. I replaced the broken link (yahoo news) with a working one.merryXIV 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Israeli/jewish Wikipedia editors

Please, refrain from constantly reverting any edits that you deem would tarnish the image of your country.--213.216.199.6 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

you wrote provocative unsourced comments and then comments referenced by a movie which what you wrote seems your personal WP:OR about the conclusions derived from the movie. thank you. Amoruso 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, I just saw this documentary (NOT a movie) on TV and decided to check out the Wikipedia article. Well, needless to say, I was disappointed.
Munich: Mossad's revenge (Channel 4)
Day after Munich
I don't have time for edit war, and if everyone else feels okay to not mention about the hundreds and hundreds uninvolved victims of Israeli retaliation, then let it be. --213.216.199.6 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add any information you think is necessary so long as you include appropriate references. As for the retaliation, you will find more in the articles Operation Wrath of God and Operation Spring of Youth. Joshdboz 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's extremely difficult to find "appropriate references" as none of mine ends in .il (Israel) in its domain name.--213.216.199.6 08:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I watched the documentary and it is certainly a credible source. Just make sure you cite it to avoid people reverting your work. Joshdboz 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, finally a voice of reason. I won't do any editing for now, as I wan't to read more, but I need to express this:
I feel very sad over the fact that it takes me — a guy who just saw a documentary — to correct a LIE BY OMISSION.
Wikipedia should be above this.--213.216.199.6 12:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I've moved this page back to the original title as there seemed to be no consensus for it to be moved, and because this is widely known as the Munich Massacre. Also, someone had added a lot of POV to the intro and others had added a bunch of tags, so I returned to a stable version and removed the tags. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there were 4 users discussing the move and the consensus was for change. There is no minimum number of votes; if people don't vote the assumption is they don't mind or don't care. I don't know why you didn't vote then, but it's rude to move it back unilaterally. By all means reopen the debate and muster supporters if you can. I'm quite happy to leave it here if you can demonstrate a consensus; you have not done so. jnestorius(talk) 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All of 4 editors? "Munich massacre" is by far the most common name, with over 108,000 Google hits. "Munich Olympic massacre" gets 12,600 hits by comparison. Wikipedia generally uses common names for article titles. From which other Munich massacre were you trying to disambiguate it? Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

These points were discussed at the vote, which see. If you and SlimVirgin can get two other Wikipedians to vote with you to change back, then fine. If it's as obvious as you say that should be easy. Let's do things properly, that's all. jnestorius(talk) 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see only two editors who supported the change. Could you say which other Munich massacre you're trying to distinguish it from? Also, you said previously it sounds as though it might be a neo-Nazi attack or even a football match. I'm afraid you've lost me there. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It was 2 Support + 1 Weak support for Munich Olympics massacre; 1 Support + 1 Mild oppose + 1 Oppose for Munich massacre. The fourth user, User:Aldux, voted on other options but expressed no preference on those two. I'm not wasting time discussing the substantive points further unless you're going to formally request a Move. jnestorius(talk) 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2 support and 1 weak support is hardly a consensus for anything, and the poll is extremelly confusing. You need to get much broader Wikipedia input for that kind of move, especially when it existed quite happily where it was for years. Why don't you try that request again? Also, it would really be helpful if you answered the question; which other Munich massacre are you trying to distinguish this from? Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And the weak support wrote: " ... how many Munich massacres can you name? Only one. The Munich massacre. But, if you realy have to change the current name, let it be "Munich Olympics massacre". Alhough I think "0lympics" is pretty much redundant here." That's not a support in my book. Anyway, regardless, with or without that vote, there is no consensus to move it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I'm not going to bother opening another vote, because I think I'd lose. I don't mind about the name, I'm just peeved at the procedure. That said, the procedure seems vague so I don't blame you. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#What if you reach a consensus and there's nobody there?.

Regarding the confusing poll: check out Approval voting.

Regarding the points: I said Nazi, not neo-Nazi. I'm sure there must have been some massacres in Munich by the Nazis. That's why I said "plausibly" called, not "actually" called. The football match was Engand 5-1 Germany in 2001. Again, I don't think many people actually call the match "the Munich massacre" (here's one). The point was, as a description it's potentially ambiguous; as a canonical name, potential ambiguity would be irrelevant. You feel the name is canonical: I disagree, as reasonable people may. jnestorius(talk) 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I added my votes against the change in the archive. Irongargoyle 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An archive is an archive, it should not be changed. I have reverted your changes and those of User:Dujang Prang (who supported Munich Massacre and opposed the others; the pre-revert version is this one for the record.) By all means record your opposition here, but not on the archived page. That said, I think SlimVirgin ought to have left the Requested Move section on this Talk: page. You don't need to archive everything; if a Talk page is too long, archive what is no longer live, and keep the recent sections on the Main page. But I don't want to be the one to undo that as it might look like personal pettiness on my part. If someone else wants to move it back out of the archive (and re-add Irongargoyle and Dujang Prang's votes), you have my blessing. jnestorius(talk) 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

The footnotes don't seem to correspond in any way to the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be a big job fixing these, because there's no indication of which footnote refers to which part of the article, so I'm going to start from scratch, but I'll only be working on it a bit at a time. I'll use the new ref style. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This isn't

Neutral, neutralize or delete

Could you be more specific? -- Jonel | Speak 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, can someone tell me if this article presents a neutral point of view? There are 36 uses of the word 'terrorist', isnt fedayeen more applicable in this situation? Terrorist is a very loaded word. There are many other biases terms such as 'slip away' instead of 'escaped'. Also, please let me know if I made any mistakes in this posting. Osabek 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term terrorist is used in many established news magazines and newspapers in describing the group's actions. So this is not a POV description. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This incident defined terrorism and put hostage-taking and the Palestinians into the spotlight, largely because of the ability of most of the world to watch events unfold minute by minute on TV. I think the use of terrorist is fine in this case, especially when quoting published sources, of which this terrorist attack is only surpassed by sept 11 2001 Greynurse 11:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of the words terrorist, murder, etc. may have a place in this article, but I think this needs a major overhaul regardless. Often times these terms aren't even the most specific, because they can easily be replaced with "militant", "hostage-taker", "shot and killed", etc. I'm not trying to push any point of view, but these topics are prime targets of emotional readers who feel very strongly one way or the other. Using terms that are almost intrinsically provocative does not help in the least. Joshdboz 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think that the word terrorist is overused, and may not be seen as acceptable in this case by many people.
IN THIS CASE????? Are you insane? Eleven innocent athletes were killed--ARE YOU INSANE????? Those "many people" are no doubt the people who welcomed these murdering freaks home as heroes--heroes for murdering 11 athletes, who wanted nothing more than to compete in the Olympic Games.
Unbelievable. "Many people"--B*LLSH*T. There's no "many people" about this. The Black September Freaks did a grave disservice to their cause by murdering 11 innocent athletes during the Olympic Games. *Everyone* knows this. Everyone knows you're terrorists. The Palestinian people have a cause and deserve help and sympathy, but not these murdering freaks, who hate because they hate, and whose existence is defined by their hatred. It ain't the '70s any more. Go lick up the blood of your own Prime Minister (see Wasfi Tell for details). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.59.15 (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt seem neutral at all, the words terrorist, massacre and such. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, Please someone change this atricle!87.101.244.8 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to us how killing Olympic athletes is "freedom fighting"? A2Kafir 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Terrorist" is the term used in the quoted sources so its what we should use here. There have been many instances of "freedom fighters" using non-terrorists tactics. Ghandi and the American Revolution spring instantly to mind (non-violent and violent). So your reasoning is horribly flawed AND violate wikipedia policy. 12.44.178.253 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

this article is the definition of bias, the term terrorist shouldn't be employed to describe the BSO militants, the munich's hostage taking was a terrorist act. there is a big difference, a terrorist is someone who directly aims unarmed individuals, on this case civilian were not deliberatly and directly targeted, and in fact the hostage were killed only because of the german police's violent intervention. In my opinion for a NPOV we should rename 'Terrorist' to 'Fedayeen', terrorist or freedom fighter, it is the reader who decides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.208.210 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Killing innocent athletes is clearly an act of terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.62.67 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we use terrorists to describe the people who killed all the innocents - more than were killed at Munich - by Israel? No we dont due to racist colonialism.

[edit] assasination of "principal planners"

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that few (if any) of those assasinated by Israel were "principle planners" from the Black September group (or even members). As I understand it, most were just high-profile Palestinian ex-pats, outspoken in their opposition of the state of Israel. A recent Channel 4 documentry in the UK points towards this (see Channel 4 Munich Site) - 128.232.240.178 22:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Boulder

From Racial and Ethnic Groups, by Richard T. Schaefer "following the 1972 munich olympics attack, president richard nixon initiated operation boulder, which allowed for coordination intelligence activities by the CIA, FBI, and other agencities to spy on and harass any Arab Americans engaging in political activity. with the objective to block support for the Palestinian cause, the three-year effort was to be directed against anyone of Arabic Background." (David and Ayoyby 2004) Upon trying to write an essay on Operation Boulder I have discovered there is no information concerning it on Wikipedia. It seems to be heavily related to this event, so perhaps someone should add something about it on this page. Obviously I cannot write the article, as you can see, the only information I have about it seems incredibly biased. Something about Operation Boulder might be a good idea, though.--Wormywyrm 02:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Operation existed at all. A2Kafir 04:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Heres some more information on the cited source from Schaefer's text:
David, Gary and Kenneth Kahtan Ayouby. 2004. "Perpetual Suspects and permanent others: arab americans and the war and terrorism." Pp. 30-71 in Guerras e Imigracioes, edited by Marco Aurelio Machado de Oliveira. Universida de Federal de Mato Grosso Do Sul.
As expected, this obscure book is not in my library. May as well ignore Operation Boulder for now. --Wormywyrm 07:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA Application

This article has failed its Good Article nomination. This is for a number of reasons, which you can see in the list below. The reasons are substantial enough not to warrant getting a 7-day hold period - this article has a long way to go before achieving GA status. It can be done though, so please rectify the problems and resubmit when you think it adheres to the good article criteria.

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 14, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article does indeed have "compelling prose". However, it reads like a novel or account, rather than an encyclopedia entry. It also follows a logical, hierarchical structure
2. Factually accurate?: All statements must be factually accurate and verifiable. This article contains no where near enough references to achieve this goal, and consequently reads like an account. Examples: "Security was kept deliberately relaxed, and it was not uncommon for athletes to come and go from the Village without presenting proper ID." How do you know? Which source did you get that from? Remember, no original research!
3. Broad in coverage?: The text is pretty thorough, with a background of what the games were like, description of the event itself and discourse on the aftermath. However, a person could not come to this article without prior knowledge of the event or its wider context. Who were Black September? Why did they target the Israelis? Why did this happen in 1972 but not in the '60s? The event is not in context. If a person who knew nothing of the Arab-Israeli conflict saw a link to "Munich Massacre" and thought "That sounds interesting, I'll read about that", they would be lost in this article. All it takes is a couple of lines on who Black September were, what their aims were, and why they did what they did.
4. Neutral point of view?: An article name like this sets an anti-NPOV tone, but since it is widely known as the Munich Massacre, it is not appropriate to try to neutralise it. The main body of the text, however, is not written in NPOV. "Countdown to Catastrophe" is not NPOV, and is a heading! "The mistakes made were mind-boggling" - neither neutral, nor referenced. This is not an essay! Also, "Could the Disaster have been presented?". This is ambiguous - is the "disaster" the Black September takeover or the German police's bungling? Either way, it is certainly not NPOV.
5. Article stability? The article is fairly stable in terms of notable edits, which is acceptable.
6. Images?: This is not a strict requirement. The article makes average use of pictures, could perhaps do with one or two more.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Chrisfow 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

None of this matters. A good article can't be based on fabrictated sources, and this one is. There is no rational, scholarly excuse for including the "Wrath of God" fables of Yuval or Juval Aviv.Scott Adler 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could the massacre have been prevented? section

This section is horribly POV and should be dramatically re-written, sourced with cites, and POV removed. As is, it's speculation and presumes faults without cites by outside parties concluding mistakes. --Durin 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Could the massacre have been prevented?Section needs overhaul

This section is a textbook case of OR. Its definitely not unencylopedic, it has a lot of useful information, and covers an area of the topic which is of interest, but while it may seem obvious that the operation was botched and "could have been prevented", the section is nothing more than an opinion piece. Find a source that makes the contentions, and attribute any such opinions to a source. Until then I'm moving it to here.

The shootout with the well-trained and suicidal Black September members showed an egregious lack of preparation on the part of the German authorities. It is clear that they were not prepared to deal with this sort of terror situation, which led directly to the founding, less than two months later, of GSG 9. The mistakes made included the following: * Because of complications in the laws that existed at the time, the Federal army of West Germany could not participate in the attempted rescue. The responsibility was entirely in the hands of the Munich police and the Bavarian authorities. * It was known a full half-hour before the terrorists and hostages had even arrived at Fürstenfeldbruck that the number of terrorists was larger than first believed. Despite this new information, Schreiber stubbornly decided to continue with the rescue operation. It is a basic tenet of sniping operations that enough snipers (at least two for each known terrorist, or in this case a minimum of ten) should have been deployed to neutralize all of the terrorists with the first volley of shots. It was this most basic failure of intelligence that led to the subsequent disaster. * The helicopters were supposed to have been landed sideways to the control tower, which would have allowed the snipers clear shots into them. Instead, the helicopters were landed facing the control tower, which not only cost the snipers shooting opportunities, but gave the terrorists a place to hide after it became clear that the Germans were attempting to rescue the hostages. * The five German snipers did not have radio contact with one another (or with the German authorities leading the rescue operation) and were unable to coordinate their fire. The only contact the snipers had with the operational leadership was with Georg Wolf, who was lying next to the three snipers on the control tower and gave orders directly to them. The two snipers at ground level had been given vague instructions to shoot when the other snipers began shooting, and were basically left to fend for themselves. * None of the snipers were equipped with steel helmets or bullet-proof vests. * The Heckler & Koch G3 battle rifles being used were considered by several experts to be inadequate for the distance at which the snipers were trying to shoot the terrorists. The G3, the standard service rifle of the Bundeswehr at that time, had a 20-inch barrel; at the distances the snipers were required to shoot, a 27-inch barrel would have ensured far greater accuracy. Additionally, none of the rifles were equipped with telescopic or infrared sights. * Incredibly, the shooter known only as "Sniper 2" (the one stationed behind the signal tower) was positioned directly in the line of friendly fire, without any protective gear and without any other police being aware of his location except the other sniper who was with him at ground level. "Sniper 2" didn't fire a single shot until late in the gunfight, when hostage-taker Khalid Jawad attempted to escape on foot and ran right at the exposed sniper. "Sniper 2" killed the fleeing terrorist but was in turn wounded by one of his fellow policemen, who was unaware that he was shooting at one of his own men. One of the helicopter pilots, Ganner Ebel, was also wounded by what turned out to be “friendly fire.” (Both Ebel and the sniper recovered from their injuries) * No tanks or armored personnel carriers were at the scene at Fürstenfeldbruck, and were only called in after the gunfight was well underway. It should also be pointed out that none of the fake crew on the 727 was prosecuted or even reprimanded for what amounted to dereliction of duty and insubordination in abandoning their posts. It is indicative of the depth of the cover-up by the German authorities that many of the police officers and border guards who were approached for interviews by the One Day in September production team were threatened with the loss of their pensions if they talked. Many of the most telling errors made by the Germans during the "rescue attempt" were detailed by Heinz Hohensinn, who had participated in the operation, but had taken early retirement and had no pension to lose.

Brentt 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Read Groussard, Reeve and Klein. Every single one of the facts in this section, which is pertinent to the article, are documented in those books - in some cases, there is overlapping citation in all three. The fact that the Germans horribly botched up the rescue operation, leading directly to the deaths of nine hostages, should be neither minimized or whitewashed. Facts are facts, and thus are not POV - this is what happened that night. To deny the facts of the Furstenfeldbruck shootout would be equivalent to saying that the hostages' deaths were the 100% responsibility of the terrorists, which is known not to be so (and please don't think that, as a Jew, I'm going to minimize the responsibility of the terrorists, either!).

Since citation is amply provided in all three books, I'm restoring the section (which, BTW, I originally wrote).

BassPlyr23 09:37, 26 November 2006 (EST)

"Because of complications in the laws that existed at the time, the Federal army of West Germany could not participate in the attempted rescue." This wasn't a mistake of the German authorities. Because of what happend during WW2, the German constitution sais that the German army can only be used to defend Germany in the case of a war. Maybe you shouldn't just copy things you've seen on National Geographic Channel into a Wikipedia article. I've seen this report, too. They just named the mistakes of the German authorities and forgot some important facts (for example that Germany wasn't the only western state that had no counter-terrorism unit in the 1970s). Simon Reeve should write for The Sun instead of making TV shows for American kids who know nothing about German policy after 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.53.225.221 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

aside from the bundeswehr beeing even less appropriate to free the hostages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, blame the germans. Just forget that such act never occurred on a Olympic Game, that it was the first Great event held in Germany after war, that the German Army cannot operate inland in peace times (which i doubt would have handle it also), that most countries hadn't anti terrorist units and international terrorism (in Europe) wasn't in such a wave like today. Your point in blaming German authorities over such incident is the same to say that Israel has it faults too, since it's foundation led to the development of international terrorism... duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.65.213.195 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I so agree with you. The section about criticisms should be changed or deleted. People treat this massacre as if it was one of the extermanation acts committed by the Nazis against the Jews. The things you mentioned are exactly the reasons why this operation ended so badly. And do people really forget it was the Palestinian terrorists who killed the Israeli's? Failure or not, the Germans did try to save them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The days before "irony"

Hello, I'm new to this article, please excuse me.

My comment is on a sentence in the "The days before" section. As a reader, I am not clear on what the irony of Andre Spitzer's placing of the wreath is. Can someone make this a little more clear in the article?

Is it because he's Romanian born?

The sentence I'm referring to starts as follows,

"Ironically, fencing coach Andre Spitzer"

- Rockthing 13:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The irony has to do with the fact that Spitzer would later become one of the hostages and would die in Germany.

BassPlyr23 09:52, 26 November 2006 (EST)

I see, thank you. I wonder, if this can somehow be made clearer later in the article? Or am I just totally missing the obvious. I'll have to read through it again.
Again, thank you for your explanation.
- Rockthing 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machine gunned; the police were carrying machine guns?

Please do excuse the petty issue I have here, but: were the athletes shot with a machine gun like an m60, or with AK-47s? And were German police carrying guns with bipods, or were they assault rifles? Although most readers of Wikipedia are fine with leaving AKs and M16s as machine guns, in military usage they would be called assault rifles. If Wikipedia is about excruciating accuracy (which is what I have seen) then I would like to have the terms changed to "shot to death" and "carrying assault rifles". Besides, in common usage shot to death sounds a lot better than making "machine gun" into a verb. Again, though most civilians will be fine with the usage, Assault rifle is a much more accurate term in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.16.162.161 (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

According to the book "Terrorism - Inside a world phenomenon" by Barry Davies, the German police were using bolt action rifles and the terrorists were using AK47's. Barry Davies (probably not his real name) claims to be ex-SAS so probably knows his weapons. Andysm 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, according to an old segment on NBC's Dateline, a branch of the East German Olympic Team supplied the BSO with the AK-47's. I wish I could find the date and a clip from this. ----DanTD 20:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the point was what weapons were being carried and used, but rather the class that they fall under. The AK-47 is not a machine gun...fully automatic rifle, yes, but machine gun? Nope. Wolf 63.76.209.49 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs work and editing

Hi, I believe that this article needs to be trimmed for length and copyedited for tone and style. As another editor (Chrisfow) argued elsewhere in this Talk page, this article "...reads like a novel or account, rather than an encyclopedia entry. It also follows a logical, hierarchical structure." This editor also argues that there are sections which lack references (e.g., "Security was kept deliberately relaxed, and it was not uncommon for athletes to come and go from the Village without presenting proper ID." ...the editor asked "How do you know? Which source did you get that from? Remember, no original research!"). As well, the editor argued that a person could "...not come to this article without prior knowledge of the event or its wider context. Who were Black September? Why did they target the Israelis? . As well, the editor notes that there are statements like "The mistakes made were mind-boggling" which are "neither neutral, nor referenced. This is not an essay!" I would like to work with other editors to improve this article. SlimVirgin, in particular, I would like to hear your views on whether the article needs to be improved...Nazamo 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From "Terrorism - Inside a world phenomenon" by Barry Davies "The Olympic village had been deliberately planned with the minimum of security, reducing the unpleasant memories of the past. The Israeli team were billeted in Connollystrasse 31, separated from the public by a wire fence and the odd patrolling guard." Andysm 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GSG 9

Should there be a mention of the GSG 9 in here? my knowledge of this incident isn't the best, but as I recall the Munich Massacre was the catalyst for the formation of the GSG 9, so should we mention something? Elementalos 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Decision to continue the games

The article currently states that the decision to continue was endorsed by the Israeli gov't and Olympic delegation's chief, citing Encarta online. First of all, Encarta only says 'Israeli government'. Second of all, I couldn't find that statement anywhere else, including Britannica online and about.com. Can someone confirm the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Encarta statement from another source? GUSwim 07:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Wrath of God" References should be removed

There is not a single independent confirmation of the account of New York taxi driver Juval Aviv, the anonymous source of the "Wrath of God" story provided to author George Jonas and told in the book "Vengeance". All Israeli sources regard the story as a complete fabrication. Scott Adler 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The facts are out there. In 1983, at the time Jonas's book was first published, Israeli intelligence officials were quoted 'unofficially' in the New York Times confirming the existence of an Israeli hit squad following the Munich affair, at the same time the Israeli government was 'officially' denying involvement. Also, when a pro-Israel film ("Sword of Gideon") was produced based on Jonas's book in 1985, the Israelis weren't calling the book a "complete fabrication" then, and allowed filming to be done in Israel. The objections being raised by Mr. Adler and others in this discussion seem (to me) just another example of the widespread belief that Israel exists in a special zero-accountability bubble where even the slightest criticism cannot be tolerated. - Mark Dixon (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well, User:Pkhetan isn't the first troll to attack this page...

...but he/she/it may be the least grammatical one. A2Kafir 00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My NPOV changes

In particular I removed this section:

a release that has led to speculation that Germany had helped stage the hijacking. [1]

Although this is referenced it seems to be more along the lines of conspiracy theory than serious speculation. Certainly I think it can be mentioned in the body of the article, but to put it in the "summary" at the top gives it more precedence than it deserves. Timb0h (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Germans helped stage the hijacking is pretty well documented in both the book and the movie
One Day in September. Facts, while discomforting to some people, are not POV. The statement has been restored.
--BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Movies are not appropriate sources. The book I have not read, but the Author does not seem reliable from his page on wikipedia. I can provide you with books that state as fact things which we all know are not true. Can we please find a proper source, and do NOT remove the tag whilst we are still discussing this. Unless you were one of the german officials involved in the supposed arrangements then your claim to know it for FACT can not be substantiated. If you were one of the germans involved, then it is not appropriate for you to be editing this article Timb0h (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) The book is a good source. But wait, don't take my word for it:

"Highly skilled and detailed...it’s a page-turner"
"A splendid, disturbing and gripping account...stands among the best of its kind"
"A brilliant investigation into the Olympics’ darkest day…a masterclass in investigative journalism"
"An important book, a thorough primer on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian standoff"

Proper enough for you? Please feel free to remove the POV tag at your leisure, and we can all move on. IronDuke 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you copy that off the back cover of the book? It may well be a good read, but what do we know of it's factual accuracy? If it is so widely accepted as truth then there should be plenty of mentions of these supposed facts in actual news sources. Timb0h (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"What do we know of its factual accuracy?" We know that it was reviewed by impeccable sources, who found it excellent. As for being mentioned in "Actual news sources" this may get at the root of what you don't seem to understand here. Of course it isn't going to be in "news sources," unless the German complicity was firmly established as events unfolded. It wasn't; it only came out years later. Here's another source for you, Alan Dershowitz, in Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (page 44) states "...it has now been confirmed by both Palestinian and German sources that the Lufthansa hijacking was a sham and that the Germans were all too eager to free the murderers." IronDuke 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Who are these impeccable sources? I don't even know of any impeccable sources. Please cite this german source. It seems to me that if a major conspiracy theory like this were uncovered and proven for a fact, then it certainly would have been covered by the mainstream media. Alan Dershowitz does not seem to be a reliable source either. His books appear to be highly controversial Timb0h (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read the Dershowitz article you linked to? He's an excellent source. But regardless, can you provide relatively fresh sources that insist that the hijacking wasn't staged? I'm eager to see them. IronDuke 13:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course I read it. There are a lot of mentions of the controversial nature of his comments and books and criticisms thereof. These criticisms make me think that it is not widely accepted by his peers. Of course I can't find sources that say it was no staged, just as I can't find sources that prove Engelbert Humperdinck isn't a robot. It is the lack of sources on this subject that makes me concerned about it's prominence. I have failed to find recent articles that even mention any allegations that it was staged [1] [2] [3] [4]. This leads me to think the allegations were widely dismissed. The only reference is in an article about a film [5], unfortunately this doesn't give us any kind of weight to weather the claims are credible or not.
People who write about controversial subjects are often controversial themselves. We could conceivably remove any source that people have labeled controversial, but that would mean dismantling a large chunk of Wikipedia, e.g., Israel, Palestine, terrorist, etc. "Of course I can't find sources that say it was no staged, just as I can't find sources that prove Engelbert Humperdinck isn't a robot." I can’t think what you meant by this, as the truth is precisely the opposite of what you wrote. Yes, yes you can—or rather “could”--find sources that dispute its having been staged. The German government, for example, might well have an interest in denying it. Have they? Have the Palestinians? So we now have several high-profile, well-regarded sources saying it was staged. How do they stack up against your sources that say it wasn’t? (And no, failure to mention that the hijacking was staged is not an argument that it was not). If you have no sources to contradict the ones already on the table, you have no argument. IronDuke 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not advocating removing references to the speculation, it is still worth mentions in the body of the article. What I am concerned with is that the speculation is being given undue prominence by being featured in the summary at the top of the page. I disagree that we have several well-regarded sources saying it was staged. If the allegations were that well recognised then they would be covered more widely in the mainstream media. Timb0h (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, from the sources, it does not appear to be speculation, but fact. If the lead were changed, I think reflecting this might be a good idea. As for "mainstream media," well, no, that's not how articles like htis are generally sourced. History and political science get sourced by scholars/experts, as is the case here. IronDuke 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It certainly can not be considered fact when it only has 2 sources, with disputed reliability. The two books mentioned so far do not have the widespread acceptence that would be required for such a claim. Looking at all the criteria for source reliability I do not see that they can be considered reliable. There is a paper here [6] that considers that absolutely no evidence has been provided to support the claim that the hijackings were staged. Perhaps mentioning the lack of evidence would help restore the neutrality of the heading section. By the way, BassPlyr23, this matter has not been resolved. You were premature in removing the tag. Timb0h (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you say more about the journal this came from, and why it meets WP:RS? IronDuke 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I was not suggesting citing the paper directly. By the way the books that have been referenced regarding the speculation do not clearly satisfy the requirements of verifiability or reliable sources (which is not policy by the way). Any old Joe can publish a book. What do we know about the fact checking that has gone on? I would like to get my hands on a copy of these books, but they do not seem to be widely available. Timb0h (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is my concern about how this is currently worded or placed. I am reading the introduction to a serious critical event. In reading it quickly I am left with the initial impression that it is claiming that the West German was involved in the hostage taking itself! I know that's not exactly what the text says - but it's the impression I was left with because I'm reading about the Hostage taking, not some minor after-story. The release of the prisoners latter is not central to the story of the Munich massacre - but it is central to the story of the Lufthansa hijacking.
Might I suggest that the story of what the West German government did or did not do wrt the Lufthansa hijacking be discussed only in the header of the article on the Lufthansa hijacking. I'm sure it merits a mention in the body of this article, where the Lufthansa hijacking is discussed in a *bit* more detail, which will obviously lead to the wikipedia article on the Lufthansa hijacking. Hmmmm - hey - IS there an article on the Lufthansa hijacking? We don't have a link to it. It certainly sounds like there is enough notability to call for one!
One more note - there was no "Germany" - it was "West Germany" at the time. Did someone sweep through and eliminate the term? I understand wrt re-countrifying when talking about "places", but there was no "German Government" at the time, to use the term "staged by Germany" is flat out inaccurate.)
CraigWyllie (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning whether the hostages were killed by the Hostagetakers

The autopsy reports on the Israeli victims and the German police officer clearly state that the bullets removed
from the bodies were all fired from AK-47 assault rifles. Since the Germans used no such weaponry in the attempted
rescue of the Israelis, the only logical assumption is that the Israelis were killed by the terrorists. I smell
troll here.
--BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for resorting to personal insults. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please could you cite the autopsy results. If it is only based on the Time reconstruction, then it can't be taken as fact. The Murder of hostages sections seems to get the correct balance, but I am simply concerned that the introduction does not. Timb0h (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Bass, I know it's hard, but try to keep on as even a keel as possible; what I do in these situations is simply look for it as an opportunity to make the article stronger. Tim, there are abundant sources to support the contention that the eleven athletes were murdered (bold added).
  • From Dictionary of Terrorism By John Richard Thackrah: "the murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the Olympic games on 5 September 1972..." (page 29)
  • From The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict By Martin Gilbert: "On 5 September 1972, the Palestinian terror campaign reached a climax in the murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the Olympic Village near Munich." (page 81)
  • From Murder at the 1972 Olympics in Munich By Liz Sonneborn: "Some 80,000 people attended a memorial service in Olympic Stadium for the eleven Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 games." (page 32)
  • From Jews and the Olympic Games: The Clash Between Sport and Politics By Paul Taylor: "Spitz's historic race in Munich, followed shortly afterwards by the murder of eleven Israeli athletes..." (Page 211)
  • From Encyclopedia of the Developing World By Thomas M. Leonard "however, was the capture and eventual murder of eleven Israeli athletes and coaches during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, West Germany..." (page 1227)
  • From The Games Must Go on: Avery Brundage and the Olympic Movement By Allen Guttmann: "The murder of eleven Israeli athletes by a band of Palestinian terrorists must not be allowed to break off the celebration of the XX Olympiad." (Page 9)
  • From The Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa By David E. Long, Bernard Reich: "and the kidnapping and murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the Olympic games in Munich in September 1972." (Page 323)
And there are many, many more souces. So, the German source is interesting, and placed correctly, but shouldn't interfere with the lead. IronDuke 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The books certainly are relevent but not entirely conclusive as far as I am concerned. Books tend to contain opinion rather than fact. Not to say that they shouldn't be used as sources, but the terminology can not always be seen as neutral. In anycase I have found a recent reliable source that states murdered [7]. Timb0h (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Great. That’s settled then. IronDuke 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Munic masscer was really bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodog5 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The team in the airplane

I recall reading that the police team in the airplane (and it wasn't five or six but a whole commando, like, 17 guys I think) voted to leave because they realised that a firefight in a fully-fueled plane wasn't a very good idea. I think this should be mentioned (but I can't find a reference, which is why I didn't edit it...) because the way it's written now it looks like they just chickened out. Anyone have a citation for this? 88.32.216.139 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Person who died during funeral

It's also found in the book, "One Day in September" on page 140, in case my added cite isn't good enough. 24.18.240.159 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union flag at full mast

This is a minor, minor point, but the reference cited to show that 10 Arab countries and the Soviet Union asked to have their flags at full-mast in fact makes no reference to the Soviet flag at all. Does anyone have another reference to support that sentence? currybet (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos the Jackal

I recall initial speculation that the gunmen were linked to Venezuelan revolutionary Carlos the Jackal, aka Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, yet this is not mentioned in this article nor in Sanchez's bio. - Mark Dixon (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] not neutral

This article is very biased by the Israeli point of view. What happened is absolutely so sad, I am terribly sorry for the Israeli sportsman who lost their lives and I curse those terrorists who caused this. I'm sure most of the people does the same but this shouldn't effect the neutrality of a Wikipedia article.

There are some emotional statements and assumptions in the article that should be cleaned. 80.34.111.233 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has numerous problems of tone, especially the sentence in the first paragraph that concludes "making a statement of defiance to the Nazi murderers of the past by showing the resilience of the Jewish people" Far Canal (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brundage speech

Brundage's speech at the memorial:

"Every civilized person is dismayed by this barbaric and criminal raid on the peaceful Olympic site by terrorists. With our Israeli friends, we mourn the victims of this brutal attack. It is a sorrowful fact in our imperfect world that the greater and more important the Olympic Games become, the more they become the victim of economic, political, and now criminal pressure. The Games of the XXth Olympiad have been the target of two terrible attacks because we have lost the struggle against political repression in the case of Rhodesia. We control only the force of a great ideal.
I am convinced that world opinion agrees with me that we cannot allow a handful of terrorists to destroy this core of international cooperation and good will which the Olympic Games represent. The Games must go on! We must proceed with our efforts to keep them pure and praiseworthy, and to carry the sportsmanlike conduct of the athletes into other spheres. We declare, therefore, this day as a day mourning and we will continue all events as planned, one day later."
Official Report, Vol 1, p.38

What's the other "terrible attack" and what's with the reference to Rhodesia? jnestorius(talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American or Canadian

This article claims that the terrorists were inadvertently assisted by American athletes. This was show in the Spielberg film as well. However, this blog post by a member of the Canadian Olympic Team, housed two doors away from the Israeli team, claims it was actually Canadians and gives a detailed explanation of the events. This is not just "some blog post", this is an official post on the CBC web site by a member of the team covering the Olympics.

Can anyone offer a counter-story that demonstrates with any authority that US athletes were indeed present?

Maury (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Article: broken link and Original Research

References 30 is clearly broken it leads to here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/

Also: "The Olympic competition was suspended on September 5 for one full day; this had never happened before. " Why not leave out the "this had never happened before." Part I of the sentence can probably be easily verified, but Part II would be much more difficult to verify, IMHO. There is no citation for the aforementioned sentence. Best regards 66.234.43.148 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German collusion in the subsequent Lufthansa hijacking

The first paragraph - prominently - includes the following: The three surviving terrorists were captured, and were later released by West Germany following the hijacking by Black September of a Lufthansa airliner, a release that has led to speculation that West Germany had helped stage the hijacking. The whole of the intro is 8 lines long in total. Wikipedia specifically proscribes giving undue attention to fringe theories, per WP:FRINGE, and aspects of numerous other policies. So, without wanting to open up a can of worms, can someone please here describe one shred of actual evidence to support this "speculation", beyond the throwaway comments of one or a few (understandably) embittered commentators in a documentary? To be blunt, subject to that justification, it sounds like arch conspiracy theory sillyness. I am tempted to invoke this little-known but extremely important Wikipedia rule. It isn't clear to me that such allegations should be mentioned at all (I have seen the documentary, although long enough ago that the details are sketchy. I do not believe however that this thesis was expanded upon in a major way.) If it is mentioned, it should be qualified and restricted to being only within the text, not in the introduction, which gives it a prominence that frankly I do not think it deserves. However, I'm open to being convinced, if there actually is any substantial evidence whatsoever that the Germans were themselves behind the Lufthansa hijacking and that this is a widespread view of key encyclopaedic importance to the subject of the Munich massacre. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone actually disputes this idea today. I think there are four sources that support this idea. (Perhpas I miscount.) As for WP:CB, I suppose it is intentional irony that the second sentence is itself complete bollocks, and agressively misses the point of WP. But if that were true, and WP was essentially about truth, could any reasonable person take seriously the idea that Germany was not complicit in the hijacking? IronDuke 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Four sources - is not very many. 1) What are the sources, beyond those already quoted in the article?; 2) What degree of attention is given to the claim in the sources? Is it fundamental to the main thesis of the source? 3) What is the nature of the evidence given, beyond unfounded opinion? 4) Not sure what you're referring to with reference to the second sentence of WP:CB, but I presume you realise that it is a light-hearted page and I was being facetious. I would certainly say however that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to produce articles, or reproduce claims, that are spurious, ill-founded, or wrong - I'm sure you agree. If you can marshal the evidence here, I'd be happy to tell you if a reasonable person can take seriously the idea of German complicity in this crime. Badgerpatrol (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this reads like a conspiracy, and is awkward in the first paragraph. Two books cited does not justify such a claim. I think it should be removed or moved. Mikelove1 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Badger, can you say if there any sources which dispute this claim? Four is actually a ton, by Wiki standards. Mike, your desire is noted, but removal of this text is very, very unlikely. IronDuke 01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite a newspaper that has covered this story, that West Germany staged the Lufthansa hijacking in order to rid themselves of the prisoners? Mikelove1 (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you say where it says a fact is only a fact when it's cited in a newspaper? IronDuke 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The sources referenced for this claim (Katz and Reeve), do not directly and explictly support the claim:

"Some observers suspect that the West Germans, afraid of being targeted by other Palestinian groups, had secretly made a deal with the Palestinians to stage the Lufthansa hijacking as an excuse for the Black September terrorists' release." -p 34 Katz

"There are several strange aspects of the hijacking that support the allegation. The Lufthansa Boeing had left Damascus with seven crew members but without a single passenger. In Beirut it picked up just thirteen passengers - a surprising low figure (and that included the two hijackers), and then continued on to Germany. Those officials prepared to speak on the record about this incident state it fits the pattern of the German government's pragmatic approach to terrorism in the 1970s. It was a time when Germany made secret agreements with Palestinian and other international terrorist groups in a desperate bid to keep them away from German borders.... It was also not the first time Lufthansa had allegedly been involved in a deal with terrorists.... Regardless of whether the release of the three Munich fedayeen was a "put-up job," in the words of one Israeli official, there was astonishment and fury in Tel Aviv when news came through of their release."-p 158 Reeve

The two authors cited don't directly and explicitly endorse this theory themselves, they mention it in passing with references to "some observers" and "one Israeli official". There seem to be no mainstream newspapers that have ever written about this conspiracy theory. The rule that "exceptional claims require high-quality sources" justifies removing it from this article and the 'Operation Wrath of God' article. Mikelove1 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well Reeve isn't exactly a fringe source, the documentary that his book accompanied won an Academy award. Definitely this doesn't belong in the lead. Ideally the controversy should be moved to a separate article on the actual hijacking (which is presumably notable in itself) but until then I don't see why at least some of the suspicions shouldn't get at least a brief mention. Joshdboz (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to add a POV tag, because I'm not convinced that this claim is anything more than the paranoia of fringe conspiracy theorists. On the evidence presented so far, I find it laughable. It certainly shouldn't be included in the intro without any sort of explanation or qualification. Choalbaton (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
After reading the discussion further up the page it is clear that the wording I found in the introduction is a serious misrepresentation of the cited sources' actual content. If the editors who want to add a reference to this material are not prepared to write it in a way that complies with Wikipedia's' policies, then it simply has no place here. I wouldn't object to it being restored in a neutral format, but only in a section towards the end of the article. It is nowhere close to having sufficient credibility to merit inclusion in the introduction. Choalbaton (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup undone

With this edit, an editor restored a mixture of date formats (breaching MOS:DATE), an idiosyncratic image thumbnail (breaching that MOS guideline and preventing logged in editors from controlling the size it displays at to suit their own preferences), and worst of all this passage:

There was an additional point of particular poignance and symbolic resonance with the past in the fact that the ...

"Poignance" is not a word, and whose opinion is it that this was especially poignant in comparison with the events of the day? Is it in a reference? If not it definitely needs to go. Similarly, murder is a legal term. In which court was this verdict announced? WP:NPOV would require "killed", as I had inserted. --John (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So the Israelis were not "murdered", even though what was done to them is clearly unlawful and thus fits the legal definition of murder. What convoluted logic. A person can be "murdered" without anyone being convicted of the crime - see the collected works of Jack the Ripper. Plus - you need to check out the Merriam-Webster online dictionary - according to them, the word "poignance" certainly does exist. Again, the point of inserting that picture at that size is to make identification of the athletes easier - there is a reason for the lengthy caption.

I think you just want to cause trouble. BassPlyr23 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who exactly appointed you the style police? Are you an administrator? The article is VERY well referenced. I'm starting to think that you're a Palestinian sympathizer whose sole motive is to sabotage the article. "Killed" vs. "murdered" is a clear distortion of the facts of September 5 - 6, 1972. Tags will be removed, as you are the only person who seems to have a problem with the article in its current form. BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community appointed me as sysop in August 2006. It's my job to know what WP:SYN, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV look like. I strongly advise you to undo this edit, or else to address the concerns I raised above. --John (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Murder is not synonymous with illegal killing but is a well-defined legal term. Unless you can show a court verdict of murder, the term should not be used on this article. Have a think about it, and check out WP:AGF if you have time. --John (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Making statements such as those above ("I don't particularly care what you think my motives are", "I intend to get what I want") are hardly befitting a sysop, and may cause the Wikipedia powers-that-be to re-evaluate your status should I decide to report them. This is hardly an example of good-faith editing and collaboration (which is supposed to be a Wikipedia hallmark), but instead is an attempt to ram your opinion down our collective throat. I assure you that I won't allow that to happen. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Who supports this stance, besides you? As I have WP:NPOV on my side, which has the consensus of the community, the real "powers-that-be" here. --John (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, since nobody else seems to have any problems with the article in its' current form (besides you), I'd suggest that we leave well enough alone. Once again, murder is far more than a legal term - and as defined by both Merriam-Webster and by Wikipedia, the word fits just fine as a description of what was done to the Israeli hostages. You seem to be the only person (outside of that knucklehead Pkhetan) who seems to have a problem with the word. BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
We disagree and I think you are right that we should seek further input. Meantime I have restored the tags; per WP:V all information needs to be sourced if challenged or it can be removed. If there is a good reference for these claims now would be a good moment to add it. --John (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Munich Massacre → Munich massacre — Massacre is not typically capatalised as a single word - see St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and Columbine High School massacre, as well as many others. I tried this move manually, without success. Note that this page was previously known as Munich Olympics massacre. YeshuaDavid (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

[edit] "Mistakes"

"The authors argue that German authorities made a number of mistakes. First, because of complications in the post-war West German constitution, the army could not participate in the attempted rescue, as the German armed forces are not allowed to operate inside Germany during peacetime."

I recognise that this is an edited version of a previously contentious section. Nevertheless, the above two sentences are a Non sequitur. If the German army could not participate in the rescue attempt because of the stipulations in the Federal German constitution, then their non-participation in the rescue attempt wasn't a "mistake" at all but a perhaps unfortunate legal necessity. I'm not arguing that the Germans didn't muck up the rescue attempt, just that this was not one of the mistakes that they made. They could not have allowed the army to get involved; it would have been not only illegal but unconstitutional. Lexo (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, this part should be removed. --84.46.3.182 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] page move

In the interests of 1. an unpoliticized wikipedia article, (more importantnly) 2. common wikipedia formatting for such terror strikes as in 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team and 2009 Togo national football team attack this article would be better suited as something to the effect of 1972 Summer Olympic attack

[edit] Criticisms of West German rescue attempt

Why is this section needed. Who cares what the opinion of some British and American folks are? Can I also add my view of the events then? And who are these 'others' and 'authors' that are mentioned anyway? And I've watched NGC, and they love to make programs with controversial statements and theories that have no basis whatsoever. I think this section should be deleted or changed to criticisms expressed by the families of the victims or the media at the time. If not this section seems very unnecessary to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No reply or actions? OK, then I'm going to remove it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Removing/Replacing the word 'terrorist

Although this topic is sensitive and that these actions are what we consider to be terrorism, however, isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral POV? I mean in other articles concerning the bombing of innocent civilians by aircraft or US/Israeli forces, they are not referred to as terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. There is consensus on this issue. If specific users editing specific changes would like to use the term without explicit attribution, they should argue that at WT:WTA. Small-scale consensus should not override broader consensus. I just had this debate with IronDuke on Al-Qaeda#The term "terrorist" as factual. I formed a collection of the relevant debate on WT:WTA at User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Where RSs use the phrase, as they do here, it is appropriate to use it.
The rule is that where RSs use the phrase (as is certainly the case here -- which can be double checked by a simple google search or even looking at the refs in the article), is is appropriate. I recognize that you are a newbie, so don't feel bitten -- I'm just pointing out what the applicable rule clearly states, and what a google search (and the article refs) clearly suppoport.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but you are entirely incorrect. The guideline WP:WTA says:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Currently, the term is being used un-attributed.

I collected all of the relevant discussion from WT:WTA (and its previous home) at User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate. If you read (or at least skim) through that, you'll find that there is consensus on that matter. I just finished a discussion at Talk:Al-Qaeda#The term "terrorist" as factual. In the discussion there, two neutral opinions were provided which agreed that there is consensus, and that the consensus is relevant and should not be overridden. I don't feel bitten, but I do think you are incorrect.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dmt, you are wrong enough about WTA that even if you were right, you would still be wrong. 1) There is no consensus at WTA not to use this word. 2) WTA specifically says that we shouldn't be rigid about these things. 3) Even if there was consensus at WTA not to use the word, and no exceptions allowed, it is still only a guideline, not policy. Is it permissible to violate a guideline? With impunity. 4) "Militant" can still be perjorative, and POV, and vague. 5) A serious case can be made not to use the word on WP, but only because we have such bizarre procedures. A serious case cannot be made in any reputable encyclopedia. An ocean of reliable sources, as well as common snse, obliterate your argument. 6) Again: sources, sources, sources. Apologies, but people who misinterpret WP guidelines and thereby get in the way of scholarship (and reason) are not merely frustrating to deal with, they make us all look ridiculous. IronDuke 00:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
1. "There is no consensus at WTA not to use this word." Let the guideline speak for itself. It states:
Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
2. "WTA specifically says that we shouldn't be rigid about these things." So we should just disregard it whenever we feel like it?
3. "Even if there was consensus at WTA not to use the word, and no exceptions allowed, it is still only a guideline, not policy. Is it permissible to violate a guideline? With impunity." WP:RS is also a guideline. Is it permissible to violate a guideline? Yes. Is it a good idea without other reason? Definitely no. Guidelines are based on strong consensus and should only be ignored when there is good reason to do so. The fact that reliable sources use a word to describe a subject is not sufficient reason to ignore the MoS. To explain (not evidence) my point: if every reliable source on Twitter uses the term "tweet" to refer to twitter-ing, does that necessarily mean that Wikipedia, along with every other tertiary source, should use the term?
4. "Militant" can still be perjorative, and POV, and vague." The word "militant" isn't addressed in WP:WTA. The rationale is that it is more clearly defined than terrorist is.

 dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would still love to hear by both Epeefleche and IronDuke as to WHY the word terrorist should be used. To me, it very obviously hurts the neutrality of an article. By the way, I both love the way you use wikipedia as a propoganda tool, IronDuke. I checked out your edits, and they consist of a lot of things like adding links between Rachel Corrie and suicide bombing to her page, and then deleting quotes about Palestinians carrying the U.S. flag in her honor, because the latter isn't relevent. My agenda is neutrality. What's yours? I don't know if you're Jewish, or Israeli, or just some dude who wants to make Israelis seem awesome and Palestinians seem evil. I'm not a Palestinian sympathizer or an Israeli sympathizer. I'm just someone who believes in neutrality and objective journalism. What good does it do the world to call them terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.144.10 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. As the guideline indicates quite clearly, the word terrorist is perfectly appropriate if widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. The word terrorist, as I expect you know if you've read the refs, as well as performed even the simplest google search, is in wide use by authoritative sources for the gentlemen here. You seem to operate under the belief that the wikipedia rule is that the word terrorist cannot be used. That's clearly incorrect. You also seem to think that whether or not that is the rule, the world would be a better place if it were the rule. That's what we refer to on wp as POV. It should not drive edits that are other than in accord w/wiki guidelines. Please note that your "neutrality", to the extent that it has you veering away from wiki guidelines, is just as deletirious to the project as the POV of a pro-X or anti-X person that affects their editing. The fact that you feel your view is a just view, and this may shock you, does not distinguish you at all from pro-jihad or anti-jihad editors who let their POVs affect their editing in accordance with the guidelines. By the way, Mr. IP, something about you seems familiar -- might you have also edited under another IP name, or perhaps using one or more user names? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
E, remember WP:DNFTT. IronDuke 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously one of the most condescending tones I've ever heard. You still didn't answer why you think the word should be used. And I know that you know that the guidelines say that "terrorist" should only be used as in-text attribution... even if it is used by reliable sources. So don't give me that B.S. You know what the policy says and so do I. And the use of the word in this article veers from the MoS guidelines (again, I think you know that) and I want to know why we are going to use these words. Would I personally label Black September as terrorists? Yes. But that's my opinion. The U.N. can't even come up with an definition of terrorism, so why can you? Is Mandela a terrorist? The U.S. labelled him as one until 2008. Terrorist is a stupid word, and only serves the function of "informing" naive readers that Black September = bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbendtsen (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. We can do this without chastising and mocking the contributions of IronDuke or any other user. Everyone here is to promote a good encyclopedia, not a specific viewpoint. Let's accept that. We can also do this without making vague accusations about sock puppetry. If you have a real accusation backed by adequate evidence, use the relevant noticeboard. The issue I see here is that Wikipedia-wide consensus is being overridden on a handful of articles. There is consensus specifically about whether and to what extent the term terrorist used non-attributed is acceptable on Wikipedia. The consensus exists at WP:WTA, which states:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious. If they are not in wide use by authoritative sources, use a more specific term such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage taker, or kidnapper. If none of these apply, use a more neutral, general word such as insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, or militant.

Epeefleche noted that the guideline states:

What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability.

It means that common sense should be employed—not that certain articles are totally exempt. WP:WTA and the enclosing WP:MoS are guidelines, not policy. WP:RS is also a guideline. While not policy, both reflect wide consensus on what is preferable on Wikipedia. I have collected relevant discussion supporting the consensus on WP:WTA at User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate to show that WP:WTA isn't some neglected backwater of a guideline that should be ignored. WP:CONSENSUS, which is Wikipedia policy, states that:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

If you can demonstrate that the Munich massacre is an exception to the MoS, I will support using the term terrorist as factual (not attributed). Otherwise, the article should follow the guideline.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've supported the use of the term in the article with highly relevant refs. The appropriate google searches support same. This matches the guidleine and wp:rs. As to the 25-edit editor who says it is one of the most condescending tones he ever heard, if he is talking about in the real world I want to move to his part of it, and if he is talking about on wikipedia, well -- in 25 edits he doesn't have much experience. My purpose was, as this newbie editor (I assume he is a raw 25-edit editor, and not a sock, under AgF) lectured me on wiki guidelines, to be direct in my response, but not to be condescending. I assure him, as he is a newbie, that he is welcome to contribute to the discussion and the editing, that his views are treated as specially important (even if blessed with far less experience than those of seasoned editors), and that I look forward to his contributions to the Project. As to Mr. IP, from Dayton, Ohio, who has 13 edits to his name, and provides the second leg of this three-legged stool, I make the same welcome. As to the substance, I stand by all I said previously. And am fascinated by the steep learning curve that he has demonstrated in wiki policy, editing, and lingo. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Although I agree with you somewhat, I think you've missed my point. Reliable sources, conceptions of neutrality, personal investments, belief systems, preferences of style, and whatever else editors of this article use—are irrelevant. Wikipedia uses consensus, and, presently, there is consensus that the term terrorist should not be used without explicit attribution. This consensus exists at WP:WTA, which has been discussed at length. In contrast to a stronger level of consensus, any opinions here are irrelevant unless it is shown that the guideline does not apply.
The rationale is that an encyclopedia is not simply a collection of reliable sources; style is important. Other tertiary sources have their own style guidelines. The NYT recently decided not to use the term twitter. Reuters does not use the term terrorist. These decisions are made despite the presence of the words in reliable secondary sources.
Guidelines have occasional exceptions. Is this one? If so, why? If you merely disagree with the guideline, I think the relevant place to discuss it is WT:WTA rather than here. If IronDuke or Epeefleche discusses the issue on WT:WTA and gathers consensus to alter the guideline, I'll have no objections. Really, I won't.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
What you wrote (Wikipedia uses consensus, and, presently, there is consensus that the term terrorist should not be used without explicit attribution) makes no sense and supports my position. What you linked to (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels), reads as follows:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious.

(my emphasis). So if (big “if”) you are thinking that every single mentioning of the word “terrorist” must be cited (over and over) after it has already been established that reliable sources widely refer to the Munich actors as “terrorists”, then that is an utterly absurd notion; we properly cite to establish the proper terminology for describing the nature of the beast and go with the flow from thereon.
As for your attempt to seize the high ground about “consensus,” yes, Wikipedia always follows RSs and is always ruled by consensus. However, your above link (“[this was] discussed at length”) resolves to User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate (nice alias you provided there.) Whatever you think was decided on your own user page has zero bearing on what goes on here; particularly when our guidelines couldn’t possibly be clearer that we always look to WP:RSs when faced with issues like this. I’m sorry if that’s shocking to you but it can’t be helped.
I suggest that you, dmyersturnbull, not edit contrary to clear Wikipedia guidelines and desist with your use of falsely referring to links in that tired old hocus-pocus stunt of “I made it blue so it must be true”™©® fashion. If most reliable English-speaking secondary sources describe the individuals responsible for an act of terrorism as “terrorists”, then that’s what we will do here. And with regard to your “The rationale is that an encyclopedia is not simply a collection of reliable sources; style is important: good. So just pardon us all over the place for preferring to refer to Wikipedia’s official style guides (like WP:MOS and its subpages) for guidance in this matter and for having the hubris to not supplant all that by referring instead to your user page (though I’m sure that would please you no end).
By the way; the next time you post, please make sure the links you provide A) aren’t aliased in a way that masks their true nature, B) takes the reader to the exact, governing section or sub-section, and C) please also provide quotes in your posts (like I did above) directing the reader’s attention to what you think is the applicable text in the provided links. Merely providing a link that reads “I’m correct because The Most Inviolate Foundation of all that is Good and Holy on Wikipedia©™® says so” just doesn’t cut it.
Oh, and just to be exceedingly clear here: I am not saying that “terrorist” and “terrorists” are appropriate here. I am saying that the only way this matter is properly decided is by looking towards the weight of reliable sources and the practices they widely use. It appears that the five or six citations in the article are properly supporting the notion that RSs refer to the Munich actors as “terrorists.” If you want to instead use words like “misunderstood desperate young men” or “actors” or “suspects” or “kidnappers”, I suggest you get cracking on proving that most reliable sources “widely use” such terminology. Greg L (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dym, may I take your failure to reply to basically any of my points as a sign that you agree with them? IronDuke 01:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, IronDuke. I addressed only Greg L's comment. I have added a response below yours (above).  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Greg L, it is entirely unreasonable of you to use language that hostile in response to civil debate. I created that subpage simply as a courtesy. If you had the dignity to skim through it, read the debate, and follow the links to the discussions, you would have realized that. I included all relevant debate I found, including opinions from both sides. If you doubt that, you should click the fucking links yourself instead of accusing me of dishonesty. Everything I took was from discussion that took place on WT:WTA, and I included all of it. Click the damned links. Seriously.

Okay. Again, you didn't address my point. Presumably, it's because I wasn't clear enough. Re-read the excerpt from the guideline you just quoted:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious.

Attribution entails attributing something to a specific reliable source. In other words, instead of saying "A is true", we say "B states that A is true". It doesn't mean citation.

My goal here isn't to start a Wiki-war. And, despite whatever premature assumptions you form about my motives, my goal is to prevent consensus from being circumvented and neutrality being skipped in articles on subjects that effect strong emotions. Neutrality should be applied even in extreme articles and, if you actually read WP:WTA and the discussion surrounding it, I think you'll learn that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the terms terrorist and terrorism are inherently non-neutral when used without explicit attribution. Stop. Think. Try to see it my way. I'm trying to see it yours. Regards,  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. That is what the guideline says, based on in-depth discussion at its talk page. It says: "use in-text attribution", and the discussion shows that it intends to mean that (i.e. it's not an issue with wording).  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 That’s fine. All our articles need to do is, on the first mention of “terrorist”, establish that fact in the form of an in-text attribution (The New York Times said this “act of terrorism shocked the conscious of civilized society”). Then behind the scenes, we agree that RSs “widely use” such a designation in referring to these actors. Once it is established that the RS community widely considers a duck to be a duck, we can refer to ducks as ducks from thereon.

As for you, dmyersturnbull, alleging my post was “hostile”: Please try to differentiate between direct-speak, where I expose the fallacious shortcomings of your arguments, and hostility. Wikipedia is not a playground for 4th graders where I and others here are obligated to profess that we admire your logic as much as you do. Nor are we required to give you an “A” for effort. If you want to be taken credibly, then try not jumping in right underneath an I.P. editor who wrote Although this topic is sensitive and that these actions are what we consider to be terrorism, however, isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral POV? I mean in other articles concerning the bombing of innocent civilians by aircraft or US/Israeli forces, they are not referred to as terrorists. And then your response, right underneath that metric ton of absurdity, the first word you pounded into your keyboard was Right. Uhmm… No, that was wrong. NPOV does not mean that if we call the Munich actors “terrorists” that a good encyclopedia is obligated to refer to the military forces of nations as “terrorists.” Nor do you get an “A” for effort for agreeing with that fallacious absurdity.

Now, once you tripped all over yourself with your first post, eyes tend to glaze over; doubly so when our plates are piled a meter high with thousands of words of debate and links and links to links on your user page. Indeed, I fell victim to that phenomenon (jaundiced expectation of what I must be looking at on your user page so I didn’t parse its nature) and for that I apologize. Had I realized the true nature of what was there on your user page, I would have cut to the chase and made this next point…

No one needs to wade through a blow-by-blow account of the background arguments and debate you pulled together on your user page. No one needs to read the bloody absurd rantings of some I.P. editor who dons orange robes, pour petrol all over himself, and sets himself alight over how members of Israel’s and the US’s armed services are “terrorists” just as much as Osama Bin Laden is one. All the wikipedian community needs is the applicable guideline. In this case, that is 52, simple words at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels. Then we discuss what it means, how it applies to this article, we establish what terminology and practices RSs “widely use” for the Munich incident, and then we’re done with it. This is not complex and there is no need to make it so. Greg L (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This had confused me:

We can not have Wikipedians debating which words are appropriate for this subject matter based on individual wikipedians’ sense of what is proper policy to establish world peace and not unnecessarily inflame situations, nor do we decide on what is proper by drawing comparisons such as how …other articles concerning the bombing of innocent civilians by aircraft or US/Israeli forces, they are not referred to as terrorists…

When I read 24.80.113.143's comment, I only read the first sentence. The two results were that you misunderstood what I was agreeing ("Right.") with, and that I assumed you were accusing editors of arguments they hadn't espoused. Perhaps we all could improve at reading more thoroughly before replying.

My sole complaint was that we were using the term without attribution. I should have explained that better, as I now know that you agree. It is, in my opinion, absolutely essential that we state in the first paragraph that the kidnappers are widely considered terrorists. Same with every article for which a strong reason not to follow the MoS has not been demonstrated.

However—and perhaps this belongs on your userpage rather than here—I can't imagine myself considering your language "direct-speak". You accused me of (presumably deliberately) editing links to [mask] their true nature and falsely referring to links. You said I was attempt[ing] to seize the high ground about 'consensus' and implied I was advocating using euphemisms like misunderstood desperate young men, and your entire post assumed a condescending sarcastic tone. You attacked my intentions and character rather than my reasoning or my edits. If you think my reasoning on something is fallacious or even stupid, please tell me that. Honestly—although it may not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside—I'll appreciate it. But expect me, among other editors, to consider your comments something other than "direct-speak" if you choose to continue to use condescending language like: Wikipedia is not a playground for 4th graders where I and others here are obligated to profess that we admire your logic as much as you do. Nor are we required to give you an “A” for effort. Christ.

Hopefully this constitutes a resolution of our debate, and hopefully the article can now move forward.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are done here. I focused too hard on that first post of this thread (‘when the Munich kidnappers do it, its terrorism but not when the U.S. does it, and that’s wrong and isn’t NPOV’) and understandably thought you were backing that position after you wrote “Right” (I gotta take you at your word). Then I misconstrued your intentions when you then pointed to mountains of user talk and discussion rather instead of a simple 52-word guideline is the governing thing here. I’m sorry for being so accusatory and judgmental, Dmyersturnbull. I’ve had other editors with *moral relativism* issues incessantly re-write articles so that they read “Anwar al-Awlaki, the conservative Muslim scholar” and hide their POV-pushing bent behind mountains of obfuscation as they dig in their heels. This was not your intention. We are in complete agreement now as to what the applicable guideline says and what needs to be done to make this article fully compliant. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian motivations

Palestinian motivations are out of the scope of this article, and moreover, they consist of original research. The fact is that the commando operation was officially named "Ikrit and Biram", after two Christian Palestinian villages whose inhabitants had been killed or expelled by the Hagannah, and this is already stated in the introduction. Other motivations are really irrelevant, since Palestinian political violence existed since 1948 or so, and Black September (group) already had done several acts of terrorism since 1970. The terrorists didn't need any special motivations to execute this massacre. Also, adding the motivation of the terrorists to the article is NPOV. -- Gabi S. (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to look at Palestinian motivations is fine for unintelligent racist colonialists but what about the rest of us?

[edit] WARNING!

PLEASE NOTE THE BIAS OF THIS ARTICLE! I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MODIFY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO MAKE IT MORE NEUTRAL. ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF ON THIS SUBJECT BY LOOKING FOR BETTER AND MORE OBJECTIVE SOURCES ON THE INTERNET! THIS ARTICLE IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The caps equal shouting, and that is much disapproved of on WP. What is required is calm discussion here. On the semantic/lexical issue, once murder involves public theatre, it starts to look very much like terrorism. If it is not an official defining attribute, it would be understood by most English-speakers as thus, on questioning them. Tony (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


I think, in the opening paragraphs, if you are going to use the word murder (which I agree with) for what the terrorists did to the Israeli team, than to keep with NPOV you need to refer to the "Killing" of those suspected as being involved as murder as well. Although murder is such a loaded word I think it either needs to be used for both or not at all. --forgot to sign in sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.195.170 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then one member of the terrorist group shot and killed an athlete lying in his bed. and not Then one member of the terrorist group murdered an athlete lying in his bed.

And this:

The Israeli government, enraged by the murder of so many of its athletes, dispatched a hit-man team… and not The Israeli government, enraged by the shooting deaths of so many of its athletes, dispatched a hit-man team.

I’m not sure, but the above green-text examples are how I suspect most reliable secondary sources widely write about this subject matter. I don’t believe they use “the terrorist murdered this person and then murdered that athlete and then murdered a coach.” If RSs really write as I have conjectured in the above quote boxes, then it would clearly be improper for wikipedians to vary from that practice and write as shown in the red-text examples. Even though the killings by the terrorists was legally murder, using such language in a repetitive fashion when RSs don’t do so would amount to editorializing.
And, clearly, when terrorists kill, it’s “murder.” And when policemen kill the terrorists, they “shot and killed them.” Why? Because that’s the way RSs handle it—I think.
So far, I’m not seeing much in the article that leads me to conclude that the tone and tenor varies markedly from the widely held practices of RSs. There might be room for some tweaks here and there, but I see nothing alarming. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you Greg for your explaination. - forgot to sign in again sorry :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.155.10 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Obituary of Abu Daoud

In the hope that it will be useful and of interest, an obituary of Abu Daoud:

The Independent - Adel Darwish - Obituary: Abu Daoud: Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1972 Olympic massacre, 6 July 2010.

I think that it includes detail which is not currently included in the article.     ←   ZScarpia   15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions about the term terrorist—and a resolution?

I cannot express in words how much I don't comprehend why we are still debating this issue. I see WP:WTA to be perfectly clear and have seen no reason to reject the guideline as unapplicable. I feel as though users on the other side are simply ignoring reason. I imagine you feel similarly about me, so I hope this dispute is simply the result of misunderstanding about the others' positions. The relevant debate has grown so enormous that assertions of position have become buried under masses of words. I intend this section only to document my position. I hope that every user participating on either side will follow this convention and list their own here.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] dmyersturnbull's opinion

1. I consider it absolutely essential that we state in the first paragraph that the kidnappers are widely considered terrorists, and that the attack is widely considered an act of terrorism.

2. We must comply with the relevant WP:WTA, which states (emphasis added):

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious.

Therefore, must call Black September a terrorist organization only using explicit attribution. For example, we would say "Black September is widely considered a terrorist organization" rather than "Black September is a terrorist organization."

3. The word "kidnapper" describes the attackers with clarity and accuracy. The only so-called reason I could see posed against using it is that it doesn't carry a sufficiently negative connotation. This term, among others, can replace non-attributed use of the term terrorist, where applicable.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify: the guideline doesn't make a distinction between the first instance of the term terrorist and later instances. However, a reasonable compromise would be to transform only the first instance so that it uses explicit attribution. That really doesn't comply with a literal interpretation of the guideline, which I think was intended. And although I do think the term kidnapper is preferable, I am willing to compromise. (Added after IronDuke's and Epeefleche's responses.)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 18:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
We do not -- emphasize not -- have to "comply" with WTA. This has been explained to you many times. It cannot be made clearer than it already has been. IronDuke 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Simply because it's a guideline? WP:RS is also a guideline. Should we ignore that, too? Guidelines, while not mandatory to follow, do reflect large-scale, long-established consensus. Since Wikipedia uses consensus, and since large-scale consensus must not be overridden by small-scale consensus, it is not acceptable to ignore the guideline without specific reason. Your basis for ignoring it, as far as I can tell amounts to "I personally don't like it." It is not reasonable to ignore a guideline simply because you feel like doing so. This is getting ridiculous.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This trend looks old. I've requested a third opinion.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I can totally understand why you feel I am "ignoring" WTA because "I personally don't like it." While I admit I don't know whether that is because you 1) Did not read my arguments 2) Did not undertsand what you read 3) Felt that my arguments had so totally crushed your own that you were obliged to ignore them, or some comination of the above, your objections are merely that -- your arguments don't fail, because you don't make them. Though you are articulate and courteous as you stonewall does not make up for the fact that you are stonewalling. 3rd opinion? Try a second opinion, based on actually engaging the arguments you see before you. IronDuke 22:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The only three rationales of yours I recall reading are:
  1. Because reliable sources use the term 'terrorist', we must also. I pointed out that Wikipedia is more than an arbitrary collection of reliable sources and that style does matter, which is why WP:WTA, along with every other WP:MoS guideline, exists. If most reliable sources use inches and feet, must Wikipedia, too?
  2. Because WP:WTA is a neglected backwater backed by inadequate discussion needed to make it a respected guideline. I showed that was completely false by demonstrating that extensive discussion had occurred, discussion that I documented.
  3. WP:WTA is simply a guideline, and can be ignored. I refuted that above. Guidelines, binding or not, reflect consensus.
I also remember debating the merits of the guideline. You brought up some interesting points there, which were (and still are) completely irrelevant: if you disagree with the guideline, progress the consensus at WT:WTA, not on individual articles. Instead of writing a paragraph on your opinions about me as a person, perhaps you could address my question? What reason is there to disregard the guideline in this case?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 23:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, please don't "recall." That's not helping. Read. Then write a reply. Then, before you hit "Save page," read the relevant discussion again, and change your reply as necessary. IronDuke 02:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for that level of sarcasm. I did skim. Sometimes it's difficult to determine exactly what another editor considers a major point. Since you obviously intended me to list something specific, mind quoting it yourself rather than telling me to go find it?
I'm puzzled by your remark. There wasn't a scintilla of sarcasm in my suggestion above. Indeed, I find it doubly strange as you used withering sarcasm downthread, bordering on NPA; perhaps this is what made you quick to feel others were being sarcastic. But no, I would like you to, literally, do what I asked. I believe I have pointed out to you before that you have ignored my arguments. I think it would be best if you now went back to my arguments -- without skimming, without having them redigested for you -- and replied. IronDuke 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that sarcasm is generally difficult to detect accurately. For every post, I have tried as best I can to remove any tone that could be misunderstood as sarcasm. You have, in previous dialog, consistently done the same, which is the reason I was startled. Re-reading ;) your post, I see there was no sarcasm. I appreciate your advice and have been taking it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A general note: if I seem to be ignoring one of your arguments, your best bet is to quote that argument rather than tell me generically that I'm ignoring something (but not specifically what). Sometimes it's not clear precisely what you consider important enough for a thorough response.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdent >-----------------Okay, you win, you wore me down. Just promise me, when you emerge from the smoking ashes of what was once your argument, that you will consider a sounder foundation in the future. Once more, and with feeling.

1. WTA is a guideline. A non-binding, style guideline. It’s tempting to simply briskly clap my hands together and stroll away, replete in the knowledge that this fact is all that is necessary to say. I am not obliged to follow WTA, and won’t if I think NPOV and/or RS (which is a guideline, too, but a content guideline at least) won’t allow for it. You are free to disagree withy whether the term terrorist, as used here, is in fact NPOV – but that argument has nothing to do with WTA. That you continue to go back to that argument, again and again and again, tells me you have much interest in this topic, but little or no knowledge, and no desire to educate yourself.

2. WTA allows for exceptions. This is one of them. You have replied to this in the past saying “So we should just disregard it whenever we feel like it?” I hope, when you look at that sentence again, you feel perhaps just the tiniest bit embarrased by it. It’s a very clumsy attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, and is begging the question. I have said why this would be an exception to WTA, if we needed an excuse to have an exception, which we don’t.

3. WTA also says “There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia” and “The advice in this guideline… should not be applied rigidly.” That is exactly what you are attempting to do, rigidly apply it. You should stop doing that.

4. This is the NPOV term. I don’t know of sources which disagree with it. If you can find them, bring them. What you may not do is posit that maybe, just maybe, there are sources out there that do not agree, and therefore we may not use the most common term.

5. This is the place to have this discussion. I do not need to go to WTA, at any time, or for any reason. If you cannot argue this case on its own merits, you cannot argue this case.

Hope that has helped clarify things. IronDuke 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Read my response slowly and with care. Although your 5 points are almost identical to the 5 points you posed previously (which I responded to, one by one) I took care reading your response thoroughly and with an open mind. I expect (no sarcasm or condescension implied) you to do the same.
1. WTA is a guideline. A non-binding, style guideline. It’s tempting to simply briskly clap my hands together and stroll away, replete in the knowledge that this fact is all that is necessary to say. I am not obliged to follow WTA, and won’t if I think NPOV and/or RS (which is a guideline, too, but a content guideline at least) won’t allow for it. You are free to disagree withy whether the term terrorist, as used here, is in fact NPOV – but that argument has nothing to do with WTA. That you continue to go back to that argument, again and again and again, tells me you have much interest in this topic, but little or no knowledge, and no desire to educate yourself.
You seem to be forming your decision based on the assumption that "content beats style". You seem to be assuming that WP:RS and WP:WTA are mutually exclusive, and that because WP:RS is a content guideline and WP:WTA is a style guideline, the former should win. Both assumptions are ill-founded. WP:RS and WP:WTA, including for this case, are compatible. Using reliable sources (and following WP:RS) doesn't require that we use every word that reliable sources use in exactly the same statistical fashion. If in reliable sources, the word "building" constitutes .003748% of the words, that doesn't mean that we need to use the word equally often. Same with non-attributed use of the word terrorist. This is a tertiary source. An encyclopedia is not an arbitrary collection of reliable sources with the words of each source concatenated. It's an encyclopedia. Prose matters. Style matters. Neutrality matters. Using explicit attribution for the term doesn't degrade the meaning or value, and would satisfy the requirements of both guidelines.
2. WTA allows for exceptions. This is one of them. You have replied to this in the past saying “So we should just disregard it whenever we feel like it?” I hope, when you look at that sentence again, you feel perhaps just the tiniest bit embarrased by it. It’s a very clumsy attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, and is begging the question. I have said why this would be an exception to WTA, if we needed an excuse to have an exception, which we don’t.
Your argument reduces to "I don't need an argument". If there is no reason to disregard the guideline, we should default to following the guideline. That is, after all, the purpose of a guideline. Your argument is totally absurd. Think it through. If there is no reason to disregard a guideline, should it be ignored? The question practically answers itself.
If you have a reason, please supply it. If you have already posed it, please quote from it.
3. WTA also says “There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia” and “The advice in this guideline… should not be applied rigidly.” That is exactly what you are attempting to do, rigidly apply it. You should stop doing that.
The purpose of that sentence is to establish the fact that it's a guideline, and that certain exceptions apply. It's not intended to be interpreted as "This guideline was thrown together with no thought. Feel free to ignore it on any whim or strong personal feelings about a subject", which seems to match your interpretation. Other guidelines feature similar disclaimers.
4. This is the NPOV term. I don’t know of sources which disagree with it. If you can find them, bring them. What you may not do is posit that maybe, just maybe, there are sources out there that do not agree, and therefore we may not use the most common term.
The consensus on that matter, which is documented at the relevant guideline WP:WTA, begs to differ. If you disagree with the guideline, take that up at the relevant talk page, not here.
5. This is the place to have this discussion. I do not need to go to WTA, at any time, or for any reason. If you cannot argue this case on its own merits, you cannot argue this case.
  1. As a WP-wide guideline, it reflects WP-wide consensus. The guideline is backed by extensive long-term discussion, which I have documented repeatedly. As per the policy WP:CONLIMITED, wider levels of consensus take precedent. Substituting these two facts reduces your argument to "I can ignore wider consensus for any reason", which violates Wikipedia policy. Is this an acceptable view?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I’d like to respectfully request (with no sarcasm) that you tighten up your replies. When you write things like “Prose matters. Style matters” I get a distinct sensation of my time being wasted. Logic matters. Facts matter. Helpful? No? Moving on, Using explicit attribution isn’t a good idea when there is no real dispute as to facts. “According to many scholars, Paris is the capital of France.” That’s just not on. And you miss, by a very wide margin, the import of point 1. Non-binding. That means I am not bound by it. This isn’t a matter of interpretation, this is a matter of basic English comprehension.
2. This is almost willful. WTA allows for exceptions. That means you may not insist that I go to WTA and gain consensus for using this word that sources would appear to agree on. Your “reply” is completely non-responsive. “If there is no reason to disregard the guideline…” Of course I’m saying there’s a reason. Good lord. What on earth did you think I was saying, if not that? Reply to the reason I have given (and not the maddeningly circular “gain consensus at WTA”) or leave off.
3. This is getting to be a pattern. You continue to attribute these straw men to me, such as indicating I am suggesting “This guideline was thrown together with no thought. Feel free to ignore it on any whim or strong personal feelings about a subject." Flat false. Obviously, obviously a-child-can-see-it false. Please a) stop doing that and b) reply to the point I actually made. “The purpose of that sentence is to establish the fact that it's a guideline…” I’m not sure I can agree that you are the best person to derive the purpose of that sentence, as you seem to be having difficulty parsing mine. The sentences are very, very clear. Do not apply this rigidly. That is what you are insisting, in the face of all reason and what the guideline itself suggests, on doing.
4. I have no problem with you waving the white flag of surrender, as you do here, but then once you’ve done that, you really must stop fighting. Your point is so weak I’m actually tempted to start arguing your side; it wouldn’t be hard to improve on what you’re doing here. I’m serious, BTW: reply to my point, or stop arguing. When all scholarly sources agree, the terminology is automatically NPOV. It would be odd to take each specific case to WTA for approval, wouldn’t it? And by “odd,” I mean “stunningly dense.”
5. Consensus on a style guideline (not seeing that you have ever once demonstrated that there is consensus for your interpretation, though you continue to assert it) cannot trump NPOV. (And again, you attribute a ridiculous view to me which I do not hold. I understand it is easier to combat these imaginary views, but I must insist you stick to what I have actually said.) Again, you refuse to engage the substance of what I am saying. I understand that is because you are unable to, but, well, you see how that means you should really therefore stop?
6. Got a new point for you, thought you’d enjoy: From Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Terrorism, “One should use common sense in labeling an attack on unarmed civilians at the Munich Olympics as "an act of terrorism", while an attack against an Iraqi military base might be better suited to the Military history Wikiproject.” Surely, we may not simply ignore wikiprojects, derived as they are by consensus, at our own mere whims?
Seriously, and again: you have nothing at all to contribute here except endless repetitions of “WTA! WTA!” That isn’t helpful—at all. Your stonewalling is unacceptable. If you know nothing of the subject, please say nothing about it. That will be your best contribution to the article. IronDuke 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
1. You wrote Using explicit attribution isn’t a good idea when there is no real dispute as to facts. If you re-read that excerpt from the guideline, you'll notice that it says unless widely used by reliable sources, in which case use in-text attribution. Since it already assumes that the term is widely used by reliable sources and thus not disputed, one can't reasonably argue that it doesn't apply because it isn't disputed. That's important to note, and I doubt it could be clearer.
2. You wrote Of course I’m saying there’s a reason. Good lord. What on earth did you think I was saying, if not that? Oh, apologies! How could I even question that you have reasons! (A healthy dose of pointed but friendly sarcasm is implied.) As I wrote before, If you have a reason, please supply it. If you have already posed it, please quote from it. Honestly, I'd love to hear it.
3. I should have indicated that it was not a quote. I apologize for that. The analogous argument wasn't intended to evidence my point, only to illustrate it. I don't think the way I'm applying it is "rigid". I recognize that certain exceptions exist, and that common sense is king. However, since I have not (thus far) seen a reason the guideline does not (or should not) apply, I don't think we should disregard it. If there is reason to disregard it, that reason should stand on its own. Please pose it.
4. What I meant was that its presence on a guideline implies that it was formed by consensus. Since articles on Wikipedia are based on consensus, and since guidelines require a greater level of consensus, and since the guideline is backed by extensive, long-term discussion, you can conclude (without even reading the discussion) that it reflects consensus. If it does not, feel free to change it. You wrote: What you may not do is posit that maybe, just maybe, there are sources out there that do not agree, and therefore we may not use the most common term. My phrasing could have been clearer. What I meant is that the relevant portion of WP:WTA implies, as it already assumes reliable sources use the term, that prevalence of use in reliable sources is irrelevant. If the term is widely used in reliable sources, it doesn't make it "automatically" NPOV.
5. I addressed your points directly. In response, you chastised me rather simply because you didn't understand anything I wrote. If you don't understand, asking me to clarify is preferable to assuming that I said nothing and didn't address your points.
6. Good find. If you can recruit other editors, without canvassing, to confirm that the consensus formed on the Wikiproject is that common sense (or another reason) dictates that WP:WTA does not apply in referring to terrorist "acts", and that reasons for doing so exist (meaning it doesn't violate the intent of WP:IAR), I'd be happy to see its non-attributed use. On an assumption of good faith, I assume that you will or do or have done that. I am leaving the discussion.
7. (Since you got to add one, I do too). I think, since we've been wrapped in argument for so long, that you've pushed your seat forward too far and are failing to understand my intentions. Consensus formed on WP:WTA is not my "argument"; it's the motive. When we first finished arguing on Talk:Al-Qaeda, I rescinded my views. I left the article. However, when I re-read WP:WTA and skimmed through the discussion, I found that not only your views, but my views, contradicted much more thorough consensus. I didn't argue because I don't think Black September is a terrorist organization, because I hate Israel, because I'm a fan of al-Qaeda, or because I'm a Super-Liberal (tm) here to promote peace, tolerance, chai tea, and Yoga as I suspect you imagine. I argued because I saw your change as violating a greater level of consensus with no stated reason.
If you had provided a (quality) reason, I would have agreed. I still don't believe that common sense dictates that the article is an exception to the guideline. However, you seem to have demonstrated that, at the very least, a high-profile Wikiproject considers believes that it does. Exiting the discussion, I assume on good faith that you will verify or have verified that the conclusion you quoted reflects the project-wide consensus. I have checked nothing.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. IronDuke 02:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Speaking of that (and of IronDuke's "reading"), finish reading the above/previous section; you'll find that Greg L agrees with me. Also read the debate on Talk:Al-Qaeda#The term "terrorist" as factual, in which WP:3O was used, resulting in two additional opinions:

  1. While IronDuke is correct that terrorism should probably be in the lead, I disagree that RS, however many there may be, get to override NPOV. Therefore, I would suggest changing 'It is widely considered a terrorist organization' to 'It is considered a terrorist organization by such organisations as X, Y, and X', and removing those designations from the infobox.— --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. (I have no article editing history with articles of this type that I am aware of.) I agree with the 3rd opinion above. User:dmyersturnbull seems to have shown that consensus supports explicit attribution of the contentious label. BigK HeX (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Both editors are highly established, at least on par with you. If this was a bureaucracy, you would have lost.

I don't see listed any "reasons" the guideline does not apply; I only see a list of preferences. You have demonstrated no reason why the guideline doesn't apply. If I have missed something, please provide a quote.

To me, this feels not as a "filibuster", but as a violation of WP:CONLIMITED based on the preferences of a handful of editors. To quote RashersTierney's reversion, which described the situation aptly, this is "Getting tiresome at this article - relavant WP convention has been indicated sufficiently."  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, either. We don't base decisions on which opinion constitutes over 50%. It seems I was mistaken about Andrensath; that would matter if Wikipedia was a bureaucracy. I can't imagine how you justify stand[ing] by [your] previous comments, as they display an utter disregard of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia uses consensus.
I'm also impressed by your command of wiki lingo despite your relatively little editing on wiki (much of which has been on this page/article) Thanks. That's because I read policy and guidelines before I argue. Perhaps you could do the same. I have been editing since 2008, and my understanding is better explained by care rather than by sockpuppetry. Your absurd, groundless accusations, which you purport with the sole intent to unfairly discredit other users, are beginning to aggravate me. This is the second time you've done this. If you have a real accusation backed by adequate evidence, use the relevant noticeboard. Show some level of restraint and maturity.
You have still not addressed my question. The guideline WP:WTA forbids non-attributed use of the word terrorism: a primary school reading comprehension, two eyes, and a device for web navigation will make this obvious (I have also quoted it multiple times). Given that, you need to demonstrate why WP:WTA does not apply. If there is no reason, the article should reflect the consensus established on WP:WTA. Consensus established here cannot override wider consensus. If you disagree with the guideline, argue that at its talk page, not here.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I, and many others, have responded to you many times. To no avail. I'm not encouraged by your resorting to impugning my maturity. Kindly remove personal attacks from your quiver, and lack of incivility. Between your above "Nelson's eye" response to the bulk of the editors on this page, your lack of respect for consensus, your reliance instead on your fellow editor w/limited WP editing history, and your personal attack, your posts -- in sum -- are starting IMHO to reflect a possible deeper issue that may, perhaps, be beyond the capacity of this page to address.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Asking rhetorical questions designed to accuse me of sockpuppetry quietly and without evidence is incivil and immature. I'm sorry if my reply came across as making unfair personal attacks. I had only intended to make a person defense in direct response to an unfair, malicious, baseless accusation which I consider a personal attack. Perhaps I jumped a little too high at that; if I did, I apologize.
I don't know why you think I lack respect for consensus. From my perspective, the consensus resides at WP:WTA, which I consider more important (per WP:CONLIMITED). From my perspective, it seems that you are ignoring the consensus simply because you disagree with it. Even from your perspective (which I suppose discounts WP:WTA), there could be no consensus, as Greg L, RashersTierney, and I disagree with you. You wrote: I, and many others, have responded to you many times. Since you are either (I will assume the latter) a) deliberately or unconsciously ignoring my question or b) mistaking my question for my being intentionally obnoxious, I point out that I am asking the question simply because I have received no answer. Why does WP:WTA not apply? Re-read the previous discussion to confirm for yourself that this was never addressed.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Dym, the post above looks a bit like a non-denial denial. Would you mind answering the question: do you now, or have you in the past, used an account different from Dmyersturnbull? That's not an accusation, BTW, merely a question. IronDuke 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it does sound like one; that was not my intent. I have only ever had one account: this one. I appreciate your being straightforward rather than asking rhetorical questions.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

<- Why don't you guys take it to the WP:NPOV/N, post it on some pertinent wikiproject noticeboards etc to get some more input ? You seem to be stuck. I would voice an opinion but I can't be bothered to wade through the discussions in detail. The debate essentially seems to be around whether, given the sourcing, Black September can be described as terrorists in Wikipedia's narrative voice without attribution or thereabouts. Discussions about whether dmyersturnbull is a sock are probably best held on his talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a neutrally worded RfC would do it. As for the other issue, there's no need for a discussion, just a simple asnwer, I think. IronDuke 02:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. If IronDuke and Epeefleche would agree, perhaps we can post to RfC or NPOV/N.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munich_massacre"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export