Talk:Munich massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Use of "terrorist" and comparison of Munich Massacre and Sabra and Shatila Massacre

How about replacing Lebanese "militiaman" with Lebanese "terrorist" in the Sabra and Shatila massacre article, á la the Munich Massacre article. The Lebanese Christians were non-government militants carrying out politicial violence targeting civilians. They murdered hundreds of Palestinian civilians and are usually called "militiamen" or even "soldiers". In contrast the Munich Massacre hostage-takers kidnapped and murdered eleven Israeli civilians, much less (although still an indefensible war crime), and are usually called "terrorists". Would pro-Israeali Wikipedians revert that or not? Or would they consider POV just like many Wikipedias do with reference to the Munich Massacre.-Kingal86 21:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

"This was later confirmed in a U.S. documentary by a Palestinian guerrilla involved in the massacre." Refers this to "One day in September"? I thought "One day in September" was a german-, swiss-, uk-production and not a U.S-documentary.

---

Sorry, I didn't know who made the documentary. An American was the narrator of the documentary. Kingal86 16:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Were the three Sept. members killed by Mossad or just those involved in the Oct. hijacking? --rmhermen

---

NPOV query: Why is there a "Munich massacre" (11 innocent Israelis, 1 policeman and 5 terrorist Palestinians dead) but no "Jenin massacre" ("at least 52 armed, of whom up to half may have been civilians hiding the Palestinians, and 23 Israeli soldiers" dead UN Report)?

11 Israelis dead. See also Talk:Jenin --Uri

---

(A documentary film about the event, 2000's One Day In September has alleged collusion between the German government and the terrorists with respect to this hijack, to prevent their mishandling of the affair being revealed at the suspects' trial).

I've seen that film, and it wasn't presented as collusion; it was presented as a typical snafu. Furthermore, unless you are one of the filmmakers or the filmmakers have been very naive and open about their intentions, you're really not on solid ground speculating about their motivations. --KQ 10:41 Sep 18, 2002 (UTC)

I've also seen it, and I don't think it was presented as snafu. In fact, the head of GSG-9, general Ulrich K Wegener, was interviewed and admitted that "The Germans probably cooperated with the Palestinans regarding the October hijacking." The plane had only 12 passengers, none of them were women or children. The hijackers' demands were met without consulting the Israelis. I think we could state that in the article. -Guppie, Sep 18, 2002.

I understand the children, but why should it matter if adult civilians are male or female? Kingal86 23:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The documentary also stated that Jamal Al Gashey, one of the Munich killers, is still alive today, presumably living anonymously with his wife and two daughters in Africa. That does not match with the article... -Guppie, Sep 18, 2002.

---

Jamal al Gashey is, apparently, still alive. -- Zos, 31-11-04

---

Terminal reprisal seems to me to be an euphemism that has no place in an encyclopaedia entry, at least not uncommented. --Laca 17:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

==stop repeating falsehoods there was no jenin massacre and that is an undisputed fact. there was however media manipulation by palestinians. the United Nations agreed there was no massacre and most of the dead were palestinian gunmen. The truth doesn't matter to some people though. Most galling was the instance of a funeral procession where the supposedly dead palestinian fell off his stretcher and got up and ran away, all on camera. its funny so called civilians were using 250lb bombs against the israelis. its also rather amazing supposedly unarmed innocents killed 23 israeli soldiers, one of the best armies in the world. 75 more were injured. yet during the coverage many rabble rousers were claiming 16 thousand dead and such when the real number was about 50 with 42 with 27-46 being terrorists, and the lies continue to this very day. just ignore what amnesty international says about there not being a massacre, truth be damned.http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html http://adl.org/Israel/jenin/default.asp

as for shaba and shatila, one has to remember they were rampaging due to the earlier palestinian masscres of christians. just something to remember.

claiming we should replace terrorist with kidnapper is like saying we should replace all references to genocide to just murderous when talking about the nazis. its less accurate and can only be motivated by strange political leanings. in fact, one can even call them just kidnappers if you twist it enough, they did just essentially kidnap jews for their concentration camps after all. 71.141.122.146 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)wamul

Pirate?

A new edit says that Mahmoud Abbas is a convicted pirate, and is now dead. I can't find anything to confirm this. Is it true, or should I remove it? Quadell (talk) 18:37, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Abu Abbas was a convicted pirate, not Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen, who is now PLO chairman. Abbas was convicted of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship (during which Jewish American civilian Leon Klinghoffer was murdered) by an Italian court and sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia. He was living in Iraq during the Anglo-American invasion, and was captured by US occupation soldiers. Italy requested his extradition, but he died in custody--of natural causes it seems. Kingal86 16:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secret Security Agents within the Olympic Team

I read some where that two of the coaches were in fact security officers there to protect the team. Has anyone else know of this fact or seen any information like this before?

Why is there a link to a nonexisting image in the article? File:Munich helicopter crime scene.jpg

Has it been deleted? Fuelbottle | Talk 14:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV edit

This article has been revised to represent a neutral point of view:

• "Terrorist" replaced by "kidnapper",
• The (too) numerous rants and outrage about the police sloppiness were reduced to matter-of-fact statements.
• Some facts were revised to state what the Israeli Report linked actually says.
• The unsubstantiated speculation of one person about Abbas' financing role has been removed.
• The unsubstantiated Israeli speculation that Germans later released 3 as a cover up was removed.
• Attributions have been made where the source of claim is obvious.

HistoryBuffEr 05:00, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes for the following reasons:

1. The term terrorist is clear and concise in this context. Black September is not a kidnapping organization. They are referred to as terrorists.
2. Histoical records that point to problems with the police are not "rants". They are a matter of historical record. Again, NPOV allows for this POV.
3. What you call "unsubstantiated speculation of one person" about Abbas' financing is supported by three external links in context. Authoritative sources are always appreciated for inclusion, if they can be added. Why you decided to remove citations for this claim is merely another example of your POV pushing. NPOV is about presenting other views, no matter how much you disagree with them.
4. Same goes for your comment about Germans releasing three, however the term "speculation" would be greatly improved by naming sources in the context of the article, although this is not necessary if the citations are accurate. Again, this represents someones POV.
5. What you call "attributions" I call distortions. In the context of the outrage at the Olympic Games, you changed the word "many" to "Israel" which is historically incorrect, (Egypt had withdrawn their team as well as Israel) and again demonstrates your POV pushing and your inability to understand NPOV. In addition to your changes, you removed the word massacre, from an article about a massacre, which I find highly disturbing.

--Viriditas 07:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have not substantiated any of your points. Your statements are not well reasoned and are certainly not facts. I'll restore the neutral version until you show what is not neutral in it. Feel free to post all those "facts" you cite:

• "Historical record" supporting rants about the police and other speculations,
• Any kind of evidence for claim about Abbas role
• Impartiality of WorldNetDaily, etc.

HistoryBuffEr 08:03, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof to prove your claims and I am not reqruired to prove a negative. Your assertions are as usual, nonsensical, as the points that remain unsubstantiated are in fact, your own. Trying to turn the tables is yet another fallacy. My response to your points was to demonstrate your inability to understand NPOV, which is like shooting dead fish in a tiny barrel. As for the POV represented in the article, it is supported by relevant citations. I'm sorry that you have a problem with different POV's, but NPOV allows for inclusion of POV's related to the topic, not exclusion of POV's you disagree with. Your history of completely altering articles to distort their meaning is well-established. --Viriditas 08:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? I removed unsubstantiated speculations and I am now supposed to prove them? Have a nice day. HistoryBuffEr 08:35, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

No, you removed substantiated speculation -- claims that included cites -- and I am not requred to prove a negative of some bogus claim you invented to avoid addressing my response to your edits. Additionally, your reverts distorted the entire article and change the meaning in several key areas.--Viriditas 08:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the concept "substantiation". Why do you think the guy who was supposedly the mastermind, but is now smearing Abbas, is the only involved person still alive? Why do you think his claim was not published in any respectable media? Why do you think Abbas was praised by Bush if he was indeed involved? And, most importantly: where is the opinion of the other side about that claim?

The NPOV class is now dismissed. HistoryBuffEr

leaving aside all other issues. the people who took the hostages could both be described as kidnappers and terrorists. however, in this case the former is a subcatagory of the latter. any attempt to say they weren't terrorists by using euphamisms belitles the truth. Xtra 08:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check your dict. Taking hostages, threatening to kill them and demanding something in return for releasing them is called "kidnapping". One could think of many other names (butchers, animals, terrorists, devils...), but "kidnappers" is neutral. HistoryBuffEr 08:33, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

that changes nothing. kidnappers can be terrorists. its like saying you can only call hitler chancellor of germany as oposed to mass murderer. you need to see past your own POV and see factual descriptions for what they are. Xtra 08:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see who is biased here: There were many occurences throughout history where a bunch of people were taken hostage and ultimately killed. I can't recall any of those cases ever being called "terrorrism". The term has indeed become popular lately (the U.S. now calls pretty much anyone it dislikes a "terrorist"), but as terrorist is in the eye of beholder that still does not make the term neutral. HistoryBuffEr 08:46, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

i suggest you read the definition of terrorist in your dictionary. that is, unless you ripped that page out and burned it so you could pretend it didnt exist and every person in the world was nice and caring and didnt want to indiscriminately kill for phycopolitical gain based on some flawed understanding of a religion. Xtra 08:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe HistoryBuffEr is correct in this debate; "kidnappers" is a better NPOV term than "terrorist" for Wikipedia's purposes. While Black September is clearly a "terrorist" organization by most peoples' definition (although Xtra is wrong, it is NOT a religiously motivated terrorist group, it is a nationalist one), it's a charged term that reflects a particular POV that is inappropriate for Wikipedia without attributing the charge to a specific authority. "Israel regards Black September as a terrorist organization." (It was never officially designated as such by the US government according to references Jayjg recently pointed me to). I also agree with HistoryBuffEr's position on deleting unsubstantiated speculation and the inappropriate use of WorldNetDaily as an impartial reference. --Alberuni 14:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A group which captures groups of civilians, then kills them for political reasons, is clearly terrorist. As long as Wikipedia has terrorist classifications and definitions, then it is appropriate to use the term. As well, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which references are "impartial" or acceptable; rather, Wikipedia presents the POVs and sources them. Please review Wikipedia:NPOV Jayjg 18:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The hostage-takers were definently war criminals. The taking of hostages, the wilful killing of civilians, the extra-judicial killing of prisoners, and threatening to murder civilians and prisoners are all war crimes. Maybe it would therefore be justified to refer to them as "terrorists" (as perpetrators of unlawful political violence). However, because there is a dispute, surely it is better to compromise on something like "kidnappers", "hostage-takers", "captors" or "militants". I think now that "guerrilla" is probably less appropiate in this situation since the militants were clearly exclusively targeting civilians in this opperation.-Kingal86 17:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong on this one. According to relevant international law (Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), war crimes can only be committed during the time of war. Genocide and crimes against humanity do not have to take part during a war, but war crimes do. "War" is also defined in these documents, and this incident, as tragic as it was, does not fall into that definition.

If I were to insist that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not "occupied territories" but rather "liberated territories", would you say "because there is a dispute, surely it is better to compromise on something like "disputed territories""? Jayjg 21:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The use of the word terrorist is not POV in this article. The word Terrorist is defined as someone who causes terror. They kidnapped and murdered athletes due to country of residence and religion. Thier deaths are homocides, as they were killed for the reasons previously stated. If they were to just have kidnapped them, it would be debatable, but I think that commiting Genocide, a crime in every member-country of the United Nations, that the use of the word Terrorist is justified. False Prophet 02:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, oh, more NPOV

Besides oodles of opinionated rants and unverified speculations, there are even statements which contradict facts:

• "The decision to continue the games was criticized by many" contradicts the fact that even Israel supported the decision.

That's not a contradiction. Many != Israel. Do you really think that everyone (people & groups) agreed with the decision to continue the games after 1day?Jewbacca 00:03, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Great, now you can surely tell us who is "many"? HistoryBuffEr 00:15, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

• "the IOC [has] refused [repeated requests] to commemorate [the event at subsequent Games]" gets only 1 hit -- yep, link to this article on Wikipedia (and some copycats).

This entire article looks like a botched K-2 project, so I am not done yet. HistoryBuffEr 23:46, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Wrong. See BBC . Is BBC a Wikipedia clone?

"The IOC says that to introduce a specific reference to the victims of the Munich massacre could alienate other members of the Olympic community.

Alex Gilady, an Israeli IOC official, told BBC News Online: "We must consider what this could do to other members of the delegations that are hostile to Israel."" Try searching without quotation marks in Google next time, English is a versatile language. Jewbacca 00:03, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

That is not what this article said. This article did not say that some victim widows asked for a permanent memorial, and it did not explain reasons for the IOC decision, did it? This was presented as if the IOC is biased and has unreasonably refused requests of many (note the laughable whine "this line of thinking goes on") HistoryBuffEr 00:15, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

IOC is being deliberately mininterpreted by A2Kafir

"However, the IOC has refused requests to commemorate the event at subsequent Games." That much is fact. This part is Zionist POV: "apparently bowing to the wishes of states hostile to Israel's existence." The following deliberate misquote is not an objective quote from a BBC report, the BBC is quoting the speculation of an Israeli IOC official: "From a BBC article: "The IOC says that to introduce a specific reference to the victims of the Munich massacre could alienate other members of the Olympic community." [1]. The IOC did not give that as their reason, the way the quote is trying to imply. An Israeli IOC official is quoted as speculating on teh erason why the IOC refuses to commemorate the dead Israelis. You are misattributing quotes, misinterprting the reason for the IOC not wanting to turn the Olympics into a Zionist political spectacle, and you are doing it to promote a Zionist POV. REVERTED. --Alberuni 17:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're changing far more than just that one quote. Jayjg 18:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Saying "Zionist" as an epithet is pretty telling. The only reason why honoring the dead athletes would offend people is because the athletes are ISRAELI. If they were Tahitians killed by nihilists we'd be honoring them each time.A2Kafir 18:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

7 reverts in one day, Alberuni

7 reverts in one day, Alberuni. Is this a new record for you? Jayjg 19:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attempt at a compromise.

There seems to be a spirited edit-war going on here. I'd like to see if I can work out a compromise, as a relatively disinterested third-party.

Wow, there are a lot of separate points under dispute in this article. Neither version is completely better than the other version, in my opinion. There are good points in both. Hopefully we can merge the two versions. I'll list the dispute below. For convenience, I'll call one version the "terrorist" version, and one version the "kidnapper" version.

• The most basic and obvious dispute is, should we call Black September "terrorists" or not? There is a major debate on this, as part of a site-wide policy, at Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development), and any disagreement can hopefully be voiced on that page. It would be nice if we could wait until an agreement is reached there before reverting. Can we call a truce on this topic, on this page, until we get a site-wide policy?

• The "kidnapper" version names the group as Black September in the introductory paragraph. I think that's a good idea.

• The "terrorist" version claims, parenthetically, that Black September has "links to the PLO, the PFLP and the DFLP." The word "links" is rather vague here, and unwisely so, since the sentence could be read as a moral accusation against these groups. It would be better to specify the links, documenting each one, or leave the sentence out.

• Besides that parenthetical remark, the "terrorist" version provides a great deal more detail in that paragraph (At 4:30. . .) that should not be lost. I see nothing POV about saying the assault rifles were heavy or the naming of the hostages. In fact, throughout the article, I generally think we should keep the level of detail in the "terrorist" version, with just a few exceptions.

• The "terrorist" version refers to "232 Arab radicals in Israeli control", while the "kidnapper" version calls them "232 Palestinians jailed in Israel". Were they all Palestinians, or were some Arabs of other nationalities? I think it's better not to call 232 unnamed persons "radicals", and "jailed in Israel" is much more specific than "in Israeli control". My preferred version would be the "kidnapper" version here, unless it can be shown that some were not Palestinians (or were not in jail).

• The "kidnapper" version says "The German police investigation indicated that a few of the hostages may have inadvertently been shot by the German police during the fierce gun battle. However, a definitive conclusion was not possible due to the severely burned condition of the bodies." If this is true, it should certainly be included.

• Regarding the Lillehammer affair, neither version explains the event well and in an NPOV manner. The phrase "quest for revenge" is just way too POV, but the phrase "accidental assassination" is confusing. I would go with the "terrorist" version, but add in something about how it was a case of mistaken identity.

• The "Impact on the Games" section is a tough one. The "terrorist" version is generally better, but the clause "apparently bowing to the wishes of states hostile to Israel's existence" isn't verifiable. I would leave out that clause, but otherwise keep the paragraph in the "terrorist" version.

I welcome comments to any of this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:38, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I welcome your intervention as a neutral 3rd party, and think all of your comments are eminently sensible. In general I am sure any edits you make will be reasonable. My only comment would be that many, many sources consider Black September to be a terrorist group; here is one valuable link. [2] Jayjg 18:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article can attribute the accusation that Black September is a terrorist organization to any identifiable group that labels them as such, such as Rand-MIPT Corporation. The label reflects a POV and is not a neutral characterization. The US government apparently never labeled Black September as a terrorist group. --Alberuni 19:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The US government only started listing terrorist groups fairly recently, perhaps the late '80s, after Black September was done killing people. So your point is irrelevant.A2Kafir 19:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong, as usual. But I take back my statement because I have discovered that the US has labeled Black September a terrorist group under the name Abu Nidal faction. [3]. Now the US can be attributed as the source calling Black September a terrorist organization. That doesn't make it a fact but it is a sourced attribution. You see, some of use stick to facts instead of just pushing pro-Israeli propaganda without thinking. NPOV; learn what it means. --Alberuni 19:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're the one ignoring facts, like the FACT that the only reason the IOC doesn't honor the athletes is that they're Israeli (excuse me, "Zionists" or "dirty Jews" to you). A2Kafir 19:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Settle down, folks. Let's stick to the content of the article, please, not each others' alleged prejudices. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Um, the fellow used "Zionist" as an epithet, which clearly shows his point-of-view.A2Kafir 19:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise Revisited

In response to Quadell:

• "Black September" shall be called "terrorists" only within a quote by someone (cite source). Outside of such quote, they'll be referred to as in dictionary: "kidnappers".
  • Instead of saying what will happen (which no one user can dictate), perhaps you should phrase it as what you'd recommend. You'll sound less abrasive that way. Regardless, any discussion on this point should be made here. I trust you'll refrain from reverting until a policy is agreed upon. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
• The names are not objectionable for POV, but do not seem to add anything encyclopedic (maybe add another list to the miriad of "Israeli victims" lists?)
  • I disagree. They were Olympic athletes, and were the subject of world-wide news for days. I think they were noteworthy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • You should definently mention the names of the civilians who were held hostage in an article about a hostage-taking and murder. Kingal86 17:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Adj "heavy" for assault rifles is questionable: all assault rifles are more or less equally heavy (or not). Sounds POV to include it.
• Other details of the initial events are both needless (they do not tell us much) and questionable: Did anyone else witness the hijacking? Who is the source (everyone who was there is dead now)?
  • I wouldn't call the details needless. They tell me a lot. By the way, the hijacker and the victims were videotaped repeatedly after the event, and both were able to make statements about how the hijacking occured. One of the coaches also escaped in the melee and described the event. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
• "Links to the PLO, the PFLP and the DFLP" is clearly an unsubstantiated speculation. Out!
• "232 Palestinians jailed in Israel" is obvious and there is nothing POV about stating plain facts.
  • Were they all 232 Palestinians? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• ""The German police investigation indicated that a few ..." comes from the Israeli article linked below. The quote sounds neutral and is sourced. (Saying that "terrorists killed them all" is, of course, unsupported by facts.)
• "In this quest for revenge ..." at first sounds POV, but why Mossad killed all these people? For fun or practice, or ... The reason sounds obvious, but I'd accept rephrasing it somehow.
  • Hmm, why not to call it "quest for justice"? Because it's POV. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "mistakenly killed a Moroccan waiter in Norway and were arrested" sounds perfectly accurate, descriptive and neutral.
• The "Impact on the Games" was probably the most POV section in the entire article and must go. I believe that my current version is reasonably neutral, but feel free to tell us what's wrong with it.

HistoryBuffEr 21:16, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I see you still don't understand the NPOV policy. Perhaps you should take some time to read it? Multiple POV's are allowed. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have the right to remove it.--Viriditas 21:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The "Impact on the Games" last sentence is completely factual. The IOC won't commemorate the dead athletes because it might offend some other nations. We know that these same nations do not accept Israel's right to exists (it is Iran state policy, for example). A2Kafir 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new to HistoryBuffEr's editing style. "Completely factual" means "totally disputed" to him. --Viriditas 21:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest, that seeing as there is an original version and a competing version, that those advocating the newer version attempt to reach a consensus on changing to that. Or reaching a consensus on some comprimise which encompases both versions. Until then, I think the original version should stand. Xtra 21:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed "heavy" from "heavy assault rifle" as no such thing exists. When shortened an lightened they are called carbine an when equipped with a heavy barrel and other accessories they are called light machine guns. Any details on the actual weaponry used by the hostage takers (hey, nice NPOV term I got here ;-)) JidGom 21:46, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Good catch. A2Kafir

Completely agreed. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Paging Quadell

Your "Compromise" version looks about 95% same as the original egregiously POV and confused article. Have you read all the discussion above? If so, what are your answers to points you have not addressed but have left in?

And since when is it NPOV to use the word "terrorist"? If it is questionable whether it is NPOV then it is POV. If no one can come up with a quote then why use a questionable term 13 times throughout the article? HistoryBuffEr 02:44, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I'm amazed that people would even consider the deliberate murder of Olympic athletes anything BUT terrorism. Or were the guys with the guns just expressing themselves politically, in your "NPOV" world? A2Kafir 02:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey A2Kafir, I'm going to go easy on you because you are obviously a bit slow on the uptake. The original plan was a kidnapping, not a "massacre". The hostages were to be exchanged for Palestinians being held (and tortured) in Israeli prisons. The original plan wasn't to kill the athletes but stuff happened along the way. (By the way, why is it that 11 dead Israeli civilians are considered a "massacre" but thousands of dead Palestinians in Jenin, Nablus, Jabalia, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories is just considered "collateral damage"? You think maybe you have a POV problem?) --Alberuni 02:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because they are collateral damage. When "brave" Palestinian fighters stop hiding behind their women and children, there won't be collateral damage when they end up dead. But that's not the point here, is it? The point is that 11 Israelis went to compete in the Olympic games and were killed for it. The mere fact that you try to equate them with Palestinians in Israeli jails, who ended up in jail for a reason (it takes money to keep people in prison!) shows that you are completely off-base even discussing this subject. Your goal is to minimize the Israeli loss, with clever and not-so-clever edits throughout the article, all under the NPOV guise. I don't buy it. A2Kafir 03:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(It seems I've been paged.) Salam, friend. My "compromise" has elements of both versions. I have read all the discussion above. I believe my phrasing to be as NPOV as I can do. No one's perfect. Regarding the "terrorist" questions, these should really go here, not on this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:28, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article is still the same very POV and confused mess and cannot be left just like that. If you want to fashion a compromise, why not start with my much clearer and NPOV version and then revise what needs to be revised.

As for "terrorism", even if we decide to wait for an officially policy, in the meantime we should use what fits the situation here. This was a case of hostage taking for ransom (to exchange for prisoners.) It does not meet definition of terrorism, regardless of what the policy discussion decides. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Isn't violence for political purposes terrorism, or does someone have to end up dead INTENTIONALLY for it to be terrorism? A2Kafir 03:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel's violence against Palestinians is also for political purpose so it meets your definition of terrorism.

As you care about principles and neutrality, you'll now go into hundreds of articles and replace "Israeli incursion", "operation" etc. with "terrorism". Right? HistoryBuffEr 04:21, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Killing people whos stated purpose is the destruction of an entire nation and who are actively working on that is war. Do you really think it is "political" to try to apprehend or kill the people that blow your buses up? A2Kafir 04:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, there are terrorists and then there are different terrorists (those who are on your side and are thus excused), right?

Now it should be clear why using that term is a bad idea: anytime we use it we are siding with or against some side by proclaiming the other side as terrorists, and we are not allowed to take sides here. HistoryBuffEr 04:41, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Look, if you want to feel all superior making semantic arguments, fine. All I know is that one side explicitily targets civilians and celebrates every success. The other tries to defend itself with security and targeted strikes that sometimes hit the wrong people; they do not celebrate and they openly debate how to reduce the casualties. You can choose to ignore that if you wish (hell, all of Europe does) but I won't. A2Kafir 04:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you've made up your mind and we're wasting our time here.

Still, think about this for a while: the other side claims that they are defending themselves from illegal occupation, opression and dispossession. And they have many more dead and destroyed homes to prove it. The question is: why do you wonder why others prefer to be neutral, and even expect them to take your side? HistoryBuffEr 05:05, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

These are Zionist schoolchildren. They've been raised to see the world only one way. It's like cult brainwashing. There's no use trying to communicate with them. Hence, the suicide bombers. --Alberuni 05:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That does it for me. Alberuni has just directly insulted 6 million people with his hatred and prejudice statement. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These hackneyed disputes over terrorism, freedom fighter, state terrorism, etc, do nothing to improve the articles. They have been repeated so many times they have lost all meaning, even for propaganda value. Just avoid the loaded terms and use other accurate descriptors that are not loaded with value-judgement. It's the only NPOV way. --Alberuni 04:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And again, though I agree with you, that particular debate belongs here, and not on this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is truly NPOV whether you agree or not

I wouldn't normally weigh in with an unhelpful comment, and I apologize in advance. I felt that the beauty of this section header should not go unnoticed. I have been smiling for the last hour thinking about it. Happyharris 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I attributed the label terrorist in the first paragraph but otherwise referred to the perpetrators as militants or kidnappers. I deleted the POV evaluations of German police "ineptitude", other editorial and wordy commentary. I included the victims' families' demands that a permanent memorial be included in all future Olympic Games and the "IOC response" as reported by BBC. This is a much more NPOV account than the the previous versions. Reverting to previous versions just so the word terrorist appears ten times in the article is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Read it and think about it. --Alberuni 02:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Listing names of the dead

Listing the names of the dead strikes me as a no-brainer, since Wikipedia articles like USS Scorpion (SSN-589) and Russian submarine Kursk have full crew rosters for lost submarines. A2Kafir 02:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Names are included in current version. It would be balanced if we could get the name of the German policeman who was killed, too. The names of the Palestinian militants would be helpful to sort out which were killed, who survived, who was later assassinated and where, and what their roles and affiliations were. --Alberuni 03:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you agree, then why are you reverting this? If you're being sarcastic, then I don't get it. Adding this information would, indeed, be useful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I did not revert the names. My version contains the names. Really, please check before accusing me. --Alberuni 04:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you may be confused, Alberuni. You reverted a version that listed the names, replacing it with a version that did not include the names, here, here, here, here, and here. Perhaps you were reverting as a knee-jerk reaction, and weren't paying attention to what you were reverting? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

When you accused me on November 12, 03:29 I had already written an NPOV version [4] that included the names (and many other concerns) and I was not deleting them in all subsequent reversions. Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the recent edits when you accused me? --Alberuni 18:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I said you had reverted the names, me intention wasn't to "accuse" you. It was to simply ask you a question. My question remains: why did you revert the names (among other changes) five times on November 10 & 11, if you feel that the names should be included? I'm really not out to get you here; I'm just trying to understand. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:43, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The context and stimlus for the edit war was Arafat's illness and the resulting attempt by Zionist POV pushers to smear Arafat's name with accusations of terrorism, including links to Black September and to this page. In the midst of this, A2Kafir began insisting on his completely slanted and paranoid accusations against the IOC for "apparently bowing to pressure from Israel's enemies" for not honoring the Israelis with a permanent ceremony at every future Olympics. In the middle of these edits and reversions, HistoryBuffEr apparently edited a version without the names of the victims. Apparently, in the process of reverting to a version prior to A2Kafir, I used HistoryBuffEr's version, not realizing he had made those deletions. In subsequent re-writes, I restored the names and made other corrections. --Alberuni 22:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The articles contained the links between Arafat and Black September and terrorism for years, and rightfully so. And, as usual, you should have started with the stable version, and proposed changes in Talk:, rather than starting with HistoryBuffEr's new POV re-write. Jayjg 23:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should stop pushing your extremist pro-Israeli POV into every article, including 60 highly POV edits to the Yasser Arafat article over the course of a few hours when you got all excited looking forward to his death. --Alberuni 02:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Good one! Jayjg 21:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Alberuni is right, I removed the names and explained why somewhere on this page. I don't mind the list but it does get in the way of the story and is not really encyclopedic. It would be best to put the list in one of those numerous lists of victims, or at least in a separate section (maybe at the bottom) if you insist. HistoryBuffEr 03:04, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

We should definently list the names of the dead, why not? They were victims of an attrocity/war crime and should be recognised. These people were innocent civilians not soldiers, and were kidnapped, held hostage and murdered merely because they were Israelis. It's not considered POV on Wikipedia to list the victims of 9/11, or civilian and security forces victims of the IRA. Kingal86 23:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone might do some research (maybe even me) and find out what events the individual athletes were to compete in, to be listed with their names. A2Kafir 02:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here we go:

• Moshe Weinberg (wrestling referee)
• Eliezer Halfin (wrestling)
• Mark Slavin (wrestling)
• Ze'ev Friedman (weight lifting)
• Joseph Romano (weight lifting)
• Kahat Shor (coach, shooting)
• David Berger (weight lifting)
• Joseph Gottfreund (wrestling referee)
• Andrei Schpitzer (fencing referee)
• Amitsur Shapira (track coach)
• Yaakov Springer (weight lifting coach)

source A2Kafir 04:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone really interested in NPOV?

More about unsubstantiated POV and more:

• "Over the ensuing 19 hours the world witnessed a display of incompetence by West German police so stunning and embarrassing that it ultimately provided the direct impetus for the creation of ..."

This is pure POV and Monday morning quarterbacking. Many hostage situations end with hostages killed, regardless of police competence. There is certainly nothing "stunning" about it.

If there is a quote for this, please provide it with source.

Agreed and deleted. --Alberuni 04:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "under the leadership from Chancellor Willy Brandt and Minister for the Interior Hans-Dietrich Genscher"

It's true these were leaders at the time, but:

• It was actually State officials (not federal officials above) who refused help.
• Is this info particularly useful one way or another?
• As the article does not mention that Golda Meir led Israel's side this may be even POV.

Agreed and will add. --Alberuni 04:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• 2 paras starting with "It was probably one of the worst planned acts in the history of military special operations ..."

Same objection as Item 1 above, plus rather confused wording.

Agreed and deleted. --Alberuni 04:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There is much more, so it would be much more productive to start with my version and edit what is objectionable.

HistoryBuffEr 03:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

It would be better to mention sources for the criticism, but the criticism appears in MANY sources about the massacre. Perhaps someone will put a version of the criticism back in (like "[governmental authority] criticised the German handling of the crisis this way" or something).

No point. The reader can decide from the actual events. --Alberuni 04:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for people to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion? Opinions lable subjects with relative terms, while facts rely on definite terms. It matters not whether one can provide evidence to support their opinion. Here is an example of an opinion: "The Sun is bright". That is an opinion because brightness is relative; there is an infinite number of different brightnesses an object can exhibit. Now, here is an example of a fact: "George W. Bush has a PhD in physics". Even though that fact is incorrect, it is still a fact because an person either posesses a PhD in physics or they do not. So, the use of "incompetent" to describe the German forces is an opinion, because there are infinite degrees of incompetence. Alberuni, you are right in removing that. Also, the term "stunning" is innapropriate in the context of this article not because it is is a common outcome of hostage taking, but because there are degrees of being "stunning". All articles (excluding, of course, talk pages) should do nothing but present facts and let the reader make his or her own opinions. --NoPetrol 22:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point of logic: "George W. Bush has a PhD in physics" is not an example of a fact. It is a proposition, and a false one. A fact is a true proposition. The proposition "The sun is bright" is true (which means it is also a fact), because no competent English speaker with normal vision would deny that the word "bright" applied to the sun, notwithstanding that there are degrees of brightness. The distinction you're trying to draw attention to is that between a fact and a value. "Incompetent" and "stunning" are value judgments, although there are instances of actions that are so incompetent and so stunning that (like the brightness of the sun) no competent English speaker would deny the correctness of their use, in which case it could be argued that they attain the status of facts. Slim 23:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Israeli revenge

I'd like to add something about the so-called Vengeance team set up by Israel. There's a lot of nonsense talked about it, and Steven Spielberg is apparently about to make a movie about it, so I thought it'd be interesting to address it, if the page could be unprotected? Slim 00:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't death squad be more accurate than "Vengeance team"? Were any of the hostage-takers armed when they were murdered abroad, by the way? Why were they not kidnapped like Vanunu, is it because Mossad is not allowed to kill Israelis (as I think the Mossad Wikipedia entry states)? Does that include Israeli Arabs? Kingal86 23:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are the disputes over so that the page can be unprotected? Kingal86, I believe the Israeli rationale for killing the Arabs believed to have planned/executed Munich was that they took lives, so their lives were taken -- whereas Vanunu didn't kill anyone. I don't know whether any of the Arabs who were killed were armed when they died. Slim 02:34, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

"revenge", "vengeance", "death squad", "justice", "executioner" - all these are POV words in this case IMO and shouldn't be in the article. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 03:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vengeance is not POV in this context, Anton, as it was one of the actual names of the team, which is why I wrote "so-called". They were called the Vengeance team by journalists and the Wrath of God team by the Israelis, apparently. Slim 03:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

The state of being a terrorist is a definable state. . .

Whether a single person or a group of people are terorists is not a matter of opinion. A person is a terrorist if they practice terrorism. Here is the definition of terrorism...

• from Merriam-Webster:

terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

• from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

• from MSN Encarta:

terrorism: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.

• from Wordsmyth:

terrorism: the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.

Was the kidnapping of the athletes an unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (for ideological or political reasons)? Yes.

Was the kidnapping of the athletes a tactic that relied on violence or the threat of violence, including bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes. Yes.

Does the kidnapping embody the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands? Yes.

The only definition that leaves any room for dispute is the Merriam Webster definition, because that definition of terrorism requires the use of "terror", which is not an absolute term.

Despite the definable nature of "terrorism", and the argument that the kidnappers in question being a fact, a logical argument against the repeated reference to the kidnappers as "terrorists" can still be made: it is equally appropriate to refer to them either as "kidnappers", as "militants", as "men", as "Arabs", as "Moslums", as "people", as "Middle-Easterners", et cetera. Since the kidnappers are obviously, by definition, terrorists, it is not the responsibility of this article to remind its readers of that fact, therefore, it is not innapropriate to replace occurances of the word "terrorist" in this article with one of the aforementioned alternate terms.

Albruni your insertion of "(a designated terrorist organization by the United States and Israel)." into the article is innapropriate. It is not Israel's job or America's job to define a group as "terrorist". It is the job of dictionaries. These dictionaries have existed long before this event happened.

I would argue that it is certainly not the role of dictionaries to define groups as terrorists. Dictionaries offer primarily descriptive uses of language, not prescriptive. I'm lean towards prescription myself, "correcting" "wrong" usages of words and grammar where I see it, but if the whole world is calling everyone else a terrorist, then that's what terrorist is going mean. And dictionaries will change their definitions to reflect that "everybody's a terrorist". Not the other way around. The US government can have its own wacky definition of "terrorist organization", and apply it indiscriminately, and no dictionary has any power over that. That said, the line probably (wasn't) very useful unless Black September was categorized as such specifically because of the incident, and not 30 years later when everyone was spooked by terrorists (I don't actually know when they would've been). It'd also need some reason to be especially notable: I don't see how US fits that, and for Israel, well, we know from the rest of the article how they feel about the organization. At any rate, the group does fit the way that the word terrorist is commonly used now, but if a more specific word can be used instead, that's usually better. FireWorks 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of the word terrorist should be allowed in this article. Here is an undisputable defenition of terrorist: The word terrorist can be broken down into an engilsh word, terror, and a greek sufix, ist. Ist means someone who or someone that. so, therefore, terrorist means someone who causes terror. Black Septmeber fits this discription. False Prophet 20:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can an administrator please unblock this page? Blocking is never good. It's less radical to ban users, I think. Neither tactic is good, in my opinion. --NoPetrol 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest edit

Alberuni, you did a good job improving the writing. I've added a few more details using CBC and John Cooley as sources. I didn't use the word "terrorist,' and I changed the word "militant" because there are strong feelings regarding both words. I've mostly used "kidnappers," sometimes "Palestinians," sometimes "the group." I left in that Black September is "designated" terrorist by the U.S. and Israel, but if that's to stay, I would say we need a reference and we also need to know which other countries have so designated it, because as it stands it sounds as though only the U.S. and Israel would use that word. Slim 22:52, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Where's a reliable source pointing to the fact that "Israeli mourners" promised that "arabs" will "pay in blood"?
• I stated before that calling the Mossad operation with a POV like "revenge" or "justice" is not necessary and it can be omitted.
• What's the reason for omitting Mohammed Daoud Oudeh part? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 17:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) The reliable reference is, as I think the article says, John K. Cooley's 1973 book, 2) Not sure I understand your second query, (3) I didn't realize anything about Daoud had been omitted: which bit? Slim 19:52, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

1) Don't you think it's a bit strange to say that all mourners promised that all Arabs will - and this is a quote - "pay in blood"? And what's "ibid"? 2) Would you call the executions in Capital Punishment article as "revenge" acts? Or maybe you would call them "justice" acts? Or maybe neither and simply call them executions? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 21:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked again. I hadn't even noticed Daoud had been deleted: my apologies. He's back, as you know, and I've slightly re-edited the paragraph. I will also later get the ISBN number and publicaton details of the autobiography. The Israeli mourners are back in, because Cooley really is a very knowledgable source. I've edited the Wrath of God part that you added. It wasn't 20 years later that they decided to do this -- perhaps that was a typo. Why do you think the word "revenge" is POV? Slim 20:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Anton, sorry I just noticed your replies. (1) The quote from Cooley doesn't say that all mourners said that all Arabs would "pay in blood," (2) "ibid" means "same as before"; it's used to avoid having to use the name of the same reference again and again, (3) I'm still not sure I understand your point about calling the Mossad operation "revenge" as being POV. A former Mossad officer who says he led one of the assassination teams later had his story written up under the title "Vengeance," so that seems to be how the Mossad saw it. The term "execution" implies that the killings were judicial, but they were not. But if you want to re-write that to get rid of the word "revenge," I have no problem, so long as you don't use a term that implies there had been due process, because that's just factually incorrect. Slim 20:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

(1) Yes it does. Here's the quote: 'Israeli mourners at the athletes' funerals called for the Arabs to "pay in blood"' (3) Hmm, yes, now I see that "execution" means 'The act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty.'. I guess assassination would be a better NPOV word for it then. Cheers, Anton Adelson, Western Australia 19:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Facts and editorials

Although this article has been improved, there are still some "editorials" (ie. unsubstantiated opinions) under:

• Aftermath, and
• Impact on the games.

I'll be replacing these (obviously biased) editorials with facts and more info, the readers should draw their own conclusions. Post any objections to my edits here. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 20:45, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Please propose the changes here first so all editors can discuss them before making changes. Remember, "Be bold...but don't be reckless". Thanks. Jayjg 20:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German snipers

The German snipers rifles didn't have scopes or night-vision devices, and one said that he wasn't a sharpshooter either.[5] This information should probably be added. Jayjg 21:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) "Now the plan rested on the accuracy of five sharpshooters, none of whom had any special training. All had been chosen simply because they shot competitively on weekends." [6] This too. Jayjg 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Memorial service

During the memorial service "IOC President Avery Brundage never once referred to the athletes during a speech in which he praised the strength of the Olympic movement. The Israelis, and many others who listened in shock, were outraged." [7] This should be mentioned as well. Jayjg 21:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Many of the 80,000 people who filled the Olympic Stadium for West Germany's soccer match with Hungary carried noisemakers and waved flags, while authorities did nothing to intervene in the name of decorum. Yet when several spectators unfurled a banner reading 17 dead, already forgotten? security officers seized the sign and expelled the offenders from the grounds." [8] More information about the memorial service that needs to be added. Jayjg 21:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Helicopter pilots fled, terrorists sprayed helicopters with gunfire

"The helicopter pilots fled, but the hostages, who were tied up inside the craft, couldn't. At one point, terrorists threw grenades in the helicopters and sprayed them with gunfire." [9] "A terrorist strafed the four hostages inside one helicopter, killing Springer, Halfin and Ze'ev Friedman and wounding Berger. Then he sprang to the ground, wheeled and flung a grenade back into the cockpit before being shot dead as he fled." "Then another commando raked the remaining five hostages — Gutfreund, Schorr, Slavin, Spitzer and Shapira — with fatal gunfire. Berger would be the last hostage to die. He had taken two nonlethal bullets in his lower extremities, only to perish of smoke inhalation." [10] These details should be added as well. Jayjg 21:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Decision to continue games

"Willi Daume, president of the Munich organizing committee, at first wanted the remainder of the Games called off, but Brundage and others prevailed. "I too questioned the decision to continue," says former mayor Vogel, "but over time I came to believe that we couldn't let the Olympics come to a halt from the hand of terrorism."" [11]. More important information. Jayjg 21:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to add all this stuff yourself, Jayjq? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 21:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, if there aren't any significant objections, then anyone can; even you, for example. :-) Jayjg 21:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Names of the killed Israelis?

What are the definitive transliterations of the killed Israelis? Time gives them as Yossef Romano, Yossef Gutfreund, Kehat Shorr/Schorr, André Spitzer, Amitzur Shapira, and Jacov Springer. However, I also see them in the article as Joseph Romano, Joseph Gottfreund, Kahat Shorr, Andrei Schpitzer, Amitsur Shapira, and Yaakov Springer (sources seem to agree on the spellings of the other names). Jayjg 05:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UT)

We'd have to know how they tended to transliterate their own names. Myself, I would probably prefer Yossef and Yaakov. Don't know about the others. When I was looking for articles, I found the names spelled several different ways. Maybe we should plump for the spellings used in what looks like the most knowledgeble site? I thought we could also use their photographs, but the only ones I've found have a rose on the bottom of each photo, which others would probably say was POV, so I didn't bother. Slim 06:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

See the list above I made, which includes a link to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs page I got it from. A2Kafir 14:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The list is in section 12, "names of the dead."A2Kafir 14:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Others would later die due to the fallout."

I didn't realize that nuclear weapons were used! --ThinkPink 21:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I read that sentence too! I deleted it, not because I think it's POV, but just because it wasn't clear what it referred to. Many terrorist attacks have prompted retaliation and other deaths, and it would be impossible to say which "fall-out" caused what number of deaths, so I felt it was redundant, especially in the intro. The Aftermath section makes clear that there were reprisals. Slim 21:48, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't see any evidence that the foray into Lebanon was a reprisal. If someone could find evidence stating that, it would be worth putting in. Jayjg 21:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jay, Benny Morris mentions it. He doesn't use the word "reprisal," but says: "The Israeli cabinet viewed the Munich assault as a challenge that could not go unanswered. The IDF immediately bombed PLO bases in Lebanon and Syria, most of them inside refugee camps, killing or wounding about two hundred Palestinians," Righteous Victims, p 381. I'll put it in as a reference. Slim 00:36, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjq, why did you keep some of the HistoryBuffer's misleading paragraphes? Where he removed the information about the number of perpetrators dead. Claimed that the entire Mossad team in the operation was made of assassins. And broke away the part of Lillehammer affair. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 19:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anton, you left a comment for me under Latest edit that I've only just seen. Sorry for not responding earlier. I've left you a response above. Slim 01:09, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Anton. Please feel free to fix any outstanding problems you see. Jayjg 00:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ThinkPink's edits

Hi ThinkPink, I reverted your edit because it seems to have deleted quite a lot of information that was properly referenced. If you want to reword something, please feel free, but the information shouldn't be removed altogether if it's relevant and has a reference. There's been a lot of discussion on this page about various issues, so it's probably a good idea to propose major changes here first.

Would anyone object if I swapped the order of Aftermath and Effect on the Games? I was thinking Aftermath made more sense coming last, as it takes us to the present day, with Daoud's recent autobiographical comments.

I don't know when the photograph of the Israeli funeral disappeared. If it was removed by consensus, my apologies. Slim 05:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it makes more sense if Aftermath comes last. Jayjg 06:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Will swap them now. Slim 06:33, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've also placed the funeral photograph in the Impact section, but feel free to move it back. Slim 06:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Impact on the Games

ThinkPink, please do not remove information that has been properly referenced. The source for the IOC official's statement that to establish a memorial might alienate other members of the Olympic community is the BBC, a reputable news organization. Had this been the opinion of only one isolated IOC member, the BBC would have interviewed the IOC officially to hear their rebuttal or would have said that the IOC had no comment. But they didn't, they quoted only one IOC official, so this suggests the comment IS the IOC official position. In addition, the official is himself Israeli, which might further suggest this is not his own private view, but is the collective decision of the committee.

Please don't simply delete research that other editors have done if it is properly referenced. You're welcome to rewrite sections to make them conform more to the specific references; you're also welcome to add referenced sections of your own. Also, it would be appreciated if you would discuss your substantial edits on the Talk pages first. Slim 16:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

You are drawing wrong inferences from bad assumptions. The quote about the policy represents the opinion of one person and is not official IOC policy. To imply otherwise based on faulty assumptions is just bad scholarship. --ThinkPink 02:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say you're the one making the extra assumption. What I am doing, and what the BBC did, is believe that, in granting an interview to the BBC to discuss the IOC's reaction to the memorial question, the IOC probably did choose who they wanted to speak on their behalf. You are making an extra assumption, without evidence, that this official was speaking only in a private capacity. The BBC always makes it clear when they are speaking to officials in a private capacity: in fact, they are meticulous about doing so. They always say afterwards: "The IOC (or whatever) declined to comment on/has not responded to . . . " In any event, even if what you say is true, how would it change our article? We have named the source, we have said who he is, he is clearly in a position to know what he's talking about, and we have attributed the remark to him. Slim 05:01, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you recognize that you are wrong. --ThinkPink 05:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arab Palestinians

Hi 12.72.84.36. I've reverted your latest edit. While it's fine to say "Arab Palestinians" once, to say it every time they're mentioned looks POV and makes the article read badly. Slim 04:50, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Hadal, we had an edit conflict there, so I may have reverted whatever change you made. I was trying to get rid of the repetition of Arab Palestinians. Slim 04:52, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not only wrestlers

"members of the Israeli amateur wrestling team were taken hostage by the Palestinian group Black September". This is wrong:

• Zeev Friedman - weightlifting athlete
• Josef Romano - weightlifting athlete
• David Berger - weightlifting athlete
• Elizer Halfin - wrestling athlete
• Mark Slavin - wrestling athlete
• Yosef Gutfreund - wrestling referee
• Amitzur Shapira - athletics coach
• Andre Spitzer - fencing coach
• Kehat Schorr - marksmanship coach
• Moshe Weinberg - wrestling coach
• Yacob Springer - weightlifting instructor

Cmapm 11:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article name?

Is the name Munich Massacre sufficiently well-established to be used as the page title, rather than Munich massacre or Munich Olympic massacre? Google references seem to occur either in titles or as anaphora, i.e. where the context has been established. If, say, I was reading an article about Yasser Arafat and I came across the sentence "some believe Arafat was involved in the Munich Massacre", it would take me a few moments' reflection to identify this as a reference to the 1972 Olympics, if it was not elaborated. Joestynes 02:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Message to Ruy

you agreeing with them doesn't change the definition of terrorism. J. Parker Stone 09:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo caption

The second photo, currently captioned: Two of the Israeli team's apartments were broken into by the kidnappers. is misleading as I believe it shows the police preparing to strom the apartments, not the kidnappers themselves, who approached the apartments via the stairwell.

Yasser Arafat

"Black September" never existed. It was a cover operation for Fatah. Anyone care to prove otherwise? Palestinians and their supporters still deny this, mainly as a cover for Fatah's boss, Yasser Arafat.

Even the producers "One Day in September" failed to identify the organization -- although they did so on their web site, probably out of fear of retaliation. After all, they wanted to win the Oscar.

Munich (film)

In the Wrath of God section there is the following line: "In 2005, Steven Spielberg shot a movie about the hit squad, to be called Munich which is based on a fictional drama loosely based on these events".

I assume the author means that Spielberg's source for the film is a "fictional drama loosely based on these events." This source, which I assume the author of the above line is referring to, is "Vengeance" by George Jonas. This book's veracity has been called into question and is a debatable matter. Because it is debatable, it is incorrect to call the book "a fictional drama" as there is no certainity as to whether or not it is true.

Jonas' book isn't "debatable" -- he revealed that his source was one Yuval Aviv, who later became a leading conspiracy promoter during the Lockerbie affair. No one in Mossad ever heard of him, including both its former boss and the members of the team. He's simply an imposter and Jonas now states that the story cannot be verified.

There was another documentary that aired on one of the satellite channels of US telivision in the last 5 years. I saw it long before the movie Munich was talked about. Maybe 3-5 years ago. I do not believe it is any of the movie/documentary references in the article. robably History or Discovery channel or something similar. If anyone remembers, please add it as a reference to the article.

I mention this documentary since the key point I remembered well was that the documentary claimed that the "Avner" group as dramatized in the movie, agreed on some unique operation rules about the killings. I do not remember if they decided this on their own or in conjunction with their Mossad bosses. They decided the targets had to (a) be 100% identified (this is also mentioned in several of the references) (b) know why they are going to die (because of Munich). This led to them deciding they had to walk up to the targets, ask them "are you XYZ person" and "do you know why we are here? (Munich)" before killing them. According to this documentary I saw, the team took extra risks to themselves to implement this. For instance, they could not use long-range snipers or similar methods where the target would die suddenly. This decision was taken to differentiate themselves in their minds from the perpetrators of the Munich killings, since the Munich victims died suddenly and with no identity or specific reason. Yet the movie only shows the first target being killed this way, remote control bombs used later seem to be at odds with this idea. Other sources referenced at the end of the article seem to agreee with the assassination methods used in the movie, so as always the truth may be hard or impossible to know.

If there are reasonable sources that can be found for this, I think something about this should be attributed to that source in the Munich Movie section. It is a very imporant alleged fact that may have been left out. If the source is as reasonable as Vengence or Sword of Gideon or any of the others that Spielberg used, then the parts he chose to leave out sheds more light on his motives for making the movie.

I'm on a talkpage and not complaining about POV or Sources...

Seems to me that "hostage-taker" would make more sense than "kidnapper", no? They were 'captured' for an objective other than a ransom...in my mind, that makes them hostages, bargaining chips...not kidnap victims. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'll point out we state hostage-taker Jamal Al-Gashey is still at large (referencing a 1999 movie appearance), then later state Of those believed to have planned or executed the Munich massacre, only Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the man who says Munich was his idea, remains alive, recommend somebody find/fix that error Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merk

"The German authorities, under the leadership of Chancellor Willy Brandt and Minister for the Interior Hans-Dietrich Genscher rejected Israel's offer to send an Israeli special forces unit to Germany. "

---

In a recent interview former Bavarian Minister of Interiour Bruno Merk denied that allegation:

"Israelische Kräfte waren uns aber weder angeboten, noch von uns angefordert worden." Forces from Israel were neither offered not requested.

"Die Israelis haben uns geraten, Zeit zu gewinnen. Es gab auch kein Angebot, ein israelisches Befreiungskommando nach München zu entsenden. Das hätte am gleichen Tag auch gar nicht zum Einsatz kommen können."

Israeli suggested us to delay. There was no offer to sent an Israeli liberation team to Munich which couldn't be used the same day anyway.

see: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt5m3/muenchen/artikel/567/68499/

NPOV, Article title and use of "Kidnappers/Terrorist"

It seems, as with any Israeli / Palestinian Discussion That this page causes a lot of Controversy. I'm Neutral, and neither Jewish, Israeli, Muslim or Arab and am very interested in Conflict Resolution and the History behind such, People have been Spouting their own POV too much already here.

I disagree with the article title, perhaps "Munich Olympics Hostage Crisis, Munich Hostage Crisis, and Olympic Hostage Crisis" etc. I do not know what the Palestinian/Arab Side called it but I have never heard it called a "Massacre" in any other context. And was surprised it was called such on wikipedia, By Definition Massacre (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Massacre) would mean indiscriminate killing of all hostages. This would imply as soon as they entered the Israeli Accommodation, Or a Premeditated Murder of the Israelis, when in Fact they only killed when (as they saw it) necessary, and finally when they realised there was no way out. They Knew the Hostages were worth more alive than dead. Therefore the title of the article is inaccurate from a NPOV.

While Black September are described many times, too many in fact, as Kidnappers, the Term can be replaced by Hostage Takers and /or Terrorists, in different contexts, there is a Fine Line Between the two terms in this case and with the benefit of hindsight the Hostage Takers could be described as Terrorists. Not Kidnappers! They Acted as Part of a Larger Campaign with sanctions from higher echelons of the Palestinian Movement to influence the Israeli Government to do their will. However, if they had not had to kill the First 2 Hostages and then got their demands and freed the remaining Israelis on save arrival in Cairo could they be described as terrorists. I think Hostage Takers is the best Option.

I agree with previous users that the definition of "Terrorist" should not be based on the US or Israeli Classification of Such. Particularly the US, They Classify any armed group that is not a recognised sovereign force, nor a Recognised Belligerent Force in a conflict or at odds with US Foreign Policy as terrorists. Today's Terrorist is Tomorrow's Statesman. George Washington was once described as one by the British.

In the Dictionary definition of Terrorists could the Mossad Vengeance Squads be described as Terrorists Also?? If the Israelis want to Classify Palestinians as Terrorists then how do you classify a Group Sanctioned by a Sovereign Government into Actions that breach International Law, Moral Law, Human Rights and Their own constitution which calls for Due Process in the Justice System? That Is too big an issue for here but the Question needs to be asked? I think the New Stephen Spielberg film (which I have not seen) will raise these questions And More.

In Acting in Such a way the Israeli's eye for an eye attitude alienates them from the international Community (Apart from the US) and polarised the Situation in the Middle East. Stabilo boss 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your points that you've made and think you've backed them up well. I do however, have to say that I think the use of the word "Massacre" in the title of the article is highly accurage. Webster defines "Massacre" as 1)the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty and 2)a cruel or wanton murder. Additionally, it seems to fit nearly to a word the definition supplied in wikipedia massacre. 4.225.22.217 01:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Stabilo boss on a number of points. In Klein's non fiction 2006 book on the subject and in the film One Day in September, and numerous news articles, the terrorists opened fire on two separate occasions at fleeing Israeli athletes within minutes of the start of the hostage taking. This calls into question your claim that they only killed when they considered it neccessary (ie. they already had some hostages - why shoot at others already out of the building (one out a window, and one in underground car park if they had not intended to kill some?). As for the Massacre debate I suggest you google the word and see how many articles refer to the 1972 Munich Massacre to give you a very firm answer that there is great consensus on calling it the Munich Massacre. I suspect if you were truly 'neutral' and honestly thought deeply for a few minutes, even a few seconds, on how it must have felt to be sitting defenceless, bound hand and foot in a helicopter as someone leans in a starts shooting at you and your fellow athletes, that you would agree it would equal the definition of a massacre. Anything else is political correctness gone mad. Maroubrakid 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Badly written article

"When it became clear that the perpetrators would not face justice in Germany" - removed, could be replaced with something like 'Frustrated with legal proceedings in Germany' or somesuch, but 'justice' is far too loaded here. Comments about the 'indifference' of German police are a little odd, too. Not to mention using WorldNetDaily as a source - that's tantamount to using an article from 'Pravda' as a source to justify a statement relating to the wonderful things the Soviet Union did for Afghanistan in the 1980s. Colonel Mustard 14:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of us do not know why WorldNetDaily is bad. Feel free to help this article become more useful by quoting useful sources... and if it turns out that WND has false info on it's web site, we'll remove it. --Dijxtra 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Hello by Kelly!~

Funeral

According to Spielberg, Meir did not attend the athletes' funeral (either because a relative of her died around the time or because she did not want to be booed by negotiation-prone Israelis. Is it true? --Error 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

incorrect number of terrorists reported as killed

The article mentions the killing of 6 terriorists yet only 5 were actually killed in the ambush (leaving 3 surviving from the original 8).

"In the ensuing chaos, the two kidnappers holding the chopper pilots (Ahmed Chic Thaa and Afif Ahmed Hamid) were killed, and a third, Khalid Jawad, was mortally wounded as he fled the scene."

So that's three dead (I'm assuming mortally wounded means severely injured died later), the article continues;

"Issa and another terrorist then dashed across the tarmac and began firing at the police, who killed the pair with return fire."

So that's another two making five, the article continues;

"Tony, the final terrorist, escaped the scene, but was tracked down using dogs and tear gas 40 minutes later, and was shot dead after a brief gunfight."

So that's three plus two plus one making six. Also according to Jamal Al-Gashey in the documentary One Day in September, Tony was severely injured in the opening salvo and couldn't make it back to the helicopters for cover so I don't see how he could have "escaped the scene".

Separate Articles?

I can't understand why Operation Wrath of God is not in its own separate article. I don't know if this has been discussed or decided before, but they seem to be quite distinct things. Obviously there would have been no wrath of god without the the massacre, but then there would be no War on Terrorism without September 11, and they have separate articles. There's some rule or guideline that redirects shouldn't suprise the user, and since typing in "operation wrath of god" brings you up to this whole article, I think its quite confusing. What would be the harm in making a separation, especially since each has substantial material to stand alone? Joshdboz 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, there isn't a separate article simply because no one has written one yet. I certainly don't see any reason why there shouldn't be an article. Write it! -- Jonel | Speak 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks very much for the encouragement. I would enjoy making one, but I was wondering if there should be a decision as to how much info to directly take out of this one and move into the new one, considering this article's section is quite detailed in itself. Should it not be shortened here, and would it be wrong to do some almost direct copy/pasting from old article to new article? Joshdboz 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've moved quite a bit of writing from this page onto the new Operation Wrath of God page, I'm going to slim down some of the sections here. If there are any objections just let me know. Joshdboz 14:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To continue my ongoing soliloquy : ), I am going to move the entire section "Vengeance and Munich" to Operation Wrath of God, in the same reasoning as my above actions. The book and movie are mainly concerned with the operation, not the massacre. Joshdboz 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Names Again

The current version of this article does not contain a list of the names of those killed. I have read through the stuff above and there really does not seem to be any reason why there shouldn't be a list here. The numbers are small enough that it won't dominate the page, and if it has its own section at the end, then it won't break the flow. I'm going to do it now, if any one has any objections to it, say so. Jackyd101 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"...never fired a shot..." vs. "...shot and killed the fleeing terrorist..."

Which one of these statements is true?Kidigus 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate pages for victims

I was just monitoring Special:Newpages and noted that User:Kewmon has recently created pages for many of the victims of this massacre. See user contributions here. These pages aren't written in encyclopedic style, don't conform to Wikipedia style conventions and some show obvious POV; Kehat Shorr originally had the sentence "Later the Germans tried to save the hostages, but every one who knows German’s knows they can’t do anything right." I don't know what to do about these pages, other than adding a cleanup or NPOV tag to each one, but users who know something about the topic (which I don't) might want to make a decision about things like how they should be rewritten and whether they're worthy of inclusion. Perhaps the user who created these pages should also be given a warning about POV on his or her talk page. --Grace 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Munich massacre → Munich Olympic massacre – "Munich massacre" is not a canonical name, and as a description it is not transparent: it might plausibly refer to some Nazi atrocity, or even a football match. jnestorius^(talk) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the discussion so far, I've replaced the simple yes/no option with an approval voting list; you can support or oppose any or all options. If any option has more than 70% support then the one with most support will be the name as per guidelines. Add any other options if you like. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose to any or all options, followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Option 1a: Munich massacre

The existing name.

• Oppose jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose; I prefer 2a. Duja 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think that current name is just fine. --Dijxtra 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 1b: Munich Massacre

Same as the existing, but with capitalization. If "Munich Massacre" is a well-established name, maybe it should be treated as a title rather than a description.

• Oppose but better than 1a jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; if we had a well-established name, we wouldn't have this discussion. Suggest scratching the proposal. Duja 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Duja --Dijxtra 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 2a: Munich Olympic massacre

• Support jnestorius^(talk) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Mild Oppose. You could at least spell it right (not Olymic). Second, "Munich Olympic massacre" is not a cannonical name either. Third, I'm not a native speaker of English, but "Olympic massacre" doesn't sound right to me—it places it into the same category as "Olympic tennis". Maybe "Munich Olympics massacre" would be more proper, as it implies that it's the massacre that occured on Munich Olympics, rather than a newly introduced sport. Duja 09:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the proofreading. I hope that's not your sole basis for opposing... on second thoughts I hope it is. I am a native speaker of English and "Munich Olympics massacre" sounds quite awkward to me; however, it has more Google hits than "Munich Olympic massacre" so I would be amenable to it as an alternative if other prefer it. "Munich massacre" is more common than either, but that's a different matter: pages where the Olympics has been established as the context will not need to resort to the longer description, whereas a Wikipedia page title has no prior context and must explain itself. I agree "Munich Olympic(s) massacre" is not a canonical name: if there is a canonical name, it should be used; if not, then we must fall back on a description instead, and use the best such rather than any old one. I submit that "Munich Olympic(s) massacre" is a better description than "Munich massacre", being less ambiguous. jnestorius^(talk) 13:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to "mild oppose"; my opposition was indeed based on linguistic rather than essential reasons (but then, so was mostly your proposal). Still, it currently is the only renowned Munich massacre. My point is still that the target rename is not so clearcut to justify the move.Duja 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding "the only renowned Munich massacre": as a comparable example, Roswell incident redirects to Roswell UFO incident. I'm not sure what you mean by "not so clearcut": you mean the proposed name is not much more descriptive than the current one? I disagree. Anyone who has ever heard of the massacre will understand the new name immediately; I believe a fair number would take a little time to guess the meaning of the current name without reading the article. jnestorius^(talk) 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Mild Support- maybe "1972 Olympics Massacre"? That would be clear.--Aldux 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be okay with me. But by opposing, are you saying "Munich massacre" is better than "Munich Olympic massacre", or just proposing something that's better than either? jnestorius^(talk) 08:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, just proposing something that seemed better than both.--Aldux 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, 2b sounds better. --Dijxtra 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 2b: Munich Olympics massacre

As 2a but with an S in Olympics

• Support though I prefer 2a jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support; 3b also acceptable Duja 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, 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. --Dijxtra 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 3a: 1972 Olympic massacre

• Support as good as 2a for me. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as neither here nor there. Duja 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as 3b --Dijxtra 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, best alternative in my view.--Aldux 00:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 3b: 1972 Olympics massacre

• Support though I prefer 3a. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mild support; 2b slightly preferred. Duja 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Munich massacre is established name for the incident, and renaming it to a name nobody uses (679 google hits as opposed to 77,700 google hits for "Munich massacre") would be... well... uncomprehensible. --Dijxtra 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but 3a is better.--Aldux 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment. Too bad that more people did not participate so far. I think that both Aldux and myself opposed not because we felt the current name is right, but because your proposal wasn't right either. The discussion format somehow encourages to vote 'yes' or 'no', but in fact we need a wider compromise on a multiple selection of choices. Duja 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think policy allows for what you suggest so I've rejigged it accordingly. I wouldn't presume to cast your votes so please fill them in. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You might wan't to join discussion here.

Result: There seems to be a consensus to move this page. Options 2b and 3b both have the most support. I'm moving the page to Munich Olympics massacre, which is closest to the current name. Eugène van der Pijll 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)