Talk:Munich massacre/Archive 3

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)


 * Shouting dire warnings doesn’t advance your interests one twit. Writing encyclopedias is hard work. Doing so in a collaborative writing environment is double-tough. As usual, these sort of articles get more than their share of sock puppets and editors who log out to anonymously shout as an I.P. You might try A) registering, which makes your arguments carry more weight with others, and B) familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s rules, policies, and guidelines, and C) adhere to those rules, including all facets of conduct-expected, and D) abandon any pretense that you came here to change how the world works. Sometimes life isn’t fair, but Wikipedia’s articles simply reflect the way reliable sources cover subjects and never tries to edit articles in a fashion intended to change the world so it is somehow a better place. If you perceive shortcomings in the article due to POV pushing, then, please, step up to the plate and follow the rules to make it a better article. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 23 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)


 * You simply don’t understand the legal meanings of these terms. “Homicide” is the killing of a human by the hand of another human. Homicides can be justified (a homeowner shooting a burglar who is advancing on him with a knife) and it can be unjustified, in which case, it can be the various degrees of murder or manslaughter. Why? Because “murder” is a legal judgement of homicide. If the police shoot a terrorist to protect public safety, then it is “killing” or “shooting the terrorist” or “homicide.” It is not murder. I shouldn’t have had to explain these basics since legal definitions and fundamental notions of “right and wrong” and “fairness” and “if the shoe fits for the terrorists then it applies to soldiers and police officers” are A) incorrect, and B) are issues far beyond the purview of volunteer wikipedians. Following the verbiage widely used by reliable secondary sources is a policy of Wikipedia. Adhering to this policy avoids nonsense where editors advance fallacious notions like “if a terrorist murders athletes then cops killing the terrorists is also murder.” I know you mean well, but please just accept *why* we simply follow reliable sources. It’s just that simple. Wikipedia is not a Rand Corporation think-tank for Wikipedians to muse about the wisdom of law and the Magna Carta and try to advance a New-Age version of truth and fairness that departs from Biased Mainstream Media®™©. Greg L (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. My above comments about the legal distinction between “killing” and “murder” and how we look towards reliable sources (RSs) is true. But adhering to the practices of RSs works both ways. I’m sure that if we looked towards reliable sources, we would find language like the following:




 * And this:




 * 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)

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)

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)


 * Doesn't change the rules. There is a reason why those rules exist.  Primarily because the word "terrorist" does not have one stable definition. Poyani (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't mention one important caveat to WP:TERRORIST: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Virtually all reliable sources call them terrorists. Therefore it should stay as is. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It actually says "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I don't see any in-text attribution.  The terrorist label is very problematic since it is not defined. Poyani (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't revert today. I will give you some time to make your argument.  However I still think I am right.  If you choose not to argue it please revert back to mine.  Thank you. Poyani (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We can add in-text attribution. That is far superior to calling them militants when almost all reliable sources call them terrorists. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "almost all reliable sources"? You have searched every reliable source which addresses Black September and the Munich Massacre, and none failed to distinguish them as "terrorists"?  I don't even think this is a guideline.  No guideline would be based on that premise.  In any event, here is one RS which clearly does not, so your argument is moot.  Not every RS refer to them as terrorists.  Furthermore, even if they did, that does not mean they should still be labeled terrorist.  "Terrorist" has no actual solid definition. Poyani (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another and another and another and another ... On what basis were you saying "almost every source" refers to Black September as terrorists? Poyani (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I never claimed every single source calls them terrorists. But most do—including your second, third, and fourth links—and that's what we should reflect. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now found several dozen news articles which reported the event at the time without referring to the perpetrators as "terrorists". This number will surely get to several hundred by the end of the day.  How are we going to decide what constitutes "almost all RS"?  Secondly, where are you getting this description from?  This is not a guideline. The guideline states very specifically that we should not use the word terrorist.  In case it is widely used by RS, use in-text attribution (i.e. "Hamas are officially designated as terrorists by these countries ..."  There is no guideline which states that if "almost all" RS refer to them using contentious labels, we use contentious labels. Even if they were, there is no way we can actually investigate the proportions of all RS say.  Nor can we really agree on what constitutes "almost all" RS For the record, the thrid link I posted did call them terrrists.  The others did not use the word "terrorist" at all.Poyani (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The second link says "In 1972, at the Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, Palestinian terrorists killed two Israeli athletes and took nine more hostage..." The fourth link says "While eight Palestinian terrorists were holding nine Israeli atheletes hostage..." –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is the one I referred to above, It is not the second link.  It is the third link.  The first link was the BBC article.  The second, third, forth and fifth were the ones which were lumped together. Poyani (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the four "another" links above, the last 3 all call them terrorists. That is pretty telling. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, that is not telling at all even if it was true. Secondly, it is not true.  The word terrorist only occurs in one of those five articles. The third one. In any event, as per this discussion and our discussion below, we can see that the proportion of articles which call them terrorists are 20% (according to me) and 80% (according to you) or something in between. What is the required percentage for your argument to come to affect?  Remember, your argument was that it is "superior" for us to use contentious words "when almost all reliable sources" use contentious words.  What percentage qualifies as "almost all"? Note that I don't even agree with your argument. I don't think the guideline for contentious words, especially for an undefined word like terrorist should ever even be questioned.  It is clearly a good rule.  Why would we use a word with negative connotations when it actually doesn't have any meaning? Poyani (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, here are screenshots of the second and fourth "another" links, with the word "terrorists" circled in red. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now found 22,100 news sources which reported on the Munich Massacre without using the word "terror" in any form. The actual number is surely higher since some must have used in-text attribution (i.e. Israeli sources called the attack "a horrible terrorist attack").  Note, total number of articles using google news archives about "Munich"+"Israeli" is 26000.  Total number of "Munich"+"Israeli"-"Terror" is 22,100.  Therefore only 15% seem to be using the word terror in any form, including in-line attributions.  That is certainly not "almost all RS". Note that this is far from a sure way of determining this, but I have no idea how editors think we should even try to determine what "almost all" RS say. We only cite a small selection of RS to make our point.  We do not cite all RS. Poyani (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Modifying that search only slightly, while trying to obtain the same information, gives a mere 99 results. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would you modify the search? Why is this relevant? How do you propose we scour all RS and try to find the proportion of articles which use the word "terrorist" to describe the hostage takers? And most importantly, which guideline are you referring to which states that if "almost all" RS use contentious labels, we should use them too? Poyani (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You put "terror" in quotes so it doesn't eliminate articles that use the word "terrorist". In fact, the second hit is an article entitled "Arab Terrorists Raid Israeli Jet In Munich". –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. You did a search for "Munich Israel -terror" (without quotations) and received just under 100 results.  Well, I changed your - sign to + and only received 38 results.  That is is still about 25% of total.  How exactly do you propose we find the proportion? Poyani (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the discussion below as well. It is the same argument being made here. Can someone please cite the WP which states that if almost all RS use a contentious label then we should use that contentious label? I am trying to find the actual text to see if it applies here. Poyani (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I doubt anyone can keep a straight face while saying that reliable sources don't widely describe them as terrorists. However, that does mean it should be within in-text attribution in the article. Google searches are not reliable sources. Books and articles about the event from respectable authors are. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly does "in-text attribution" mean? Do we have to quote the word "terrorist" and then provide references directly afterwards? Do we have to say "the Palestinian hostage-takers, described by many as terrorists, ..." In either case, do we have to do this throughout the article? Or is it sufficient to simply provide plenty of references that refer to them as terrorists early in the article, as is currently done? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys. "Terrorist" is not a word with a constant definition.  It is a contentious label.  For what "in-text attribution" means, see the articles of Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad.  They state things like "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organizations by the governments of these countries ..."  That is in-text attribution.  When you explain who is describing them as terrorist. I have researched this further and noticed that this supposed guideline, where editors are to use contentious labels when "almost all RS" use contentious labels, doesn't exist. In fact, it is applied almost exclusively to this article. Take a look at the article for Hezbollah for example.  It uses only in-line attributions.Poyani (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline is actually less strict than the "almost all reliable sources" I have said. It actually says "widely used by reliable sources". It is up to the editors' discretion to determine whether that threshold is met. Past editors have apparently decided that it is. If you want to change that I suggest you start an RfC. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * XXX describes them as terrorists[reference] or "Verbatim quote describing them as terrorists" - (attribution)[reference] would be "in text attribution". ( Hohum  @ ) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes CWenger. The guideline you are referring to states that we should use "in-line attribution". I believe you were arguing that we should use the contentious words without attribution if "almost all reliable sources" use them.Poyani (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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):

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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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.) dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This trend looks old. I've requested a third opinion. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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:
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * 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? dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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.


 * 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? dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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 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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 06:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. IronDuke  02:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree w/Iron, Tony, Greg, and the like above. For the reasons already stated, clearly, in various colors and fonts, by the above.  This is starting to feel like a filibuster of long-standing editors with 125,000 edits between them, by an editor with 125th/that many.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 12 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, in which WP:3O was used, resulting in two additional opinions: Both editors are highly established, at least on par with you. If this was a bureaucracy, you would have lost.
 * 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 &#124; 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)

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." dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 06:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said previously on this page, as well as the statements of the indicated editors. I'm not sure why you think Andre is an established editor.  He, as you, doesn't even have 1,000 edits.  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) ... do you have prior experience editing wiki under different names?  Last point -- consensus and the rules are what I am pointing at, which I think better reflect the what we should do than the input of a minority group.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 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.  dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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.  dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ 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. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Map of West Germany
Hi, I would like to suggest the use of a map that shows Germany as it was when the events took place. Meaning I would like to see a map that does not show a reunited Germany but West Germany only. This also will make people aware (If they dont yet know) of the separation back in those days. Greetings from ( a since 1990 reunited) Germany, --Freakschwimmer (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverts to "terrorist" WP:Label change
CWenger just reverted my removal of the word "terrorist" from the article by stating "convince people on the talk page if you want this changed". But no one is even discussing this. I posted more evidence of why this change should be made over a week ago and still no one has responded.

I still don't understand what the issue is. WP:Label clearly states that we are not to use contentious labels and that if anyone is insisting on the use of contentious labels we should use "inline attribution". This article is absolutely ridiculous as it stands. It is absolutely full of contentious labels and is one of the most extreme examples of POV pushing on Wikipedia.

Compare this article for example to the article for the Sabra and Shatila massacre. This comparison really makes the POV evident. The Sabra and Shatila article states the facts and the important trials and outcomes of the massacre. It does not call the perpetrators "war criminals" throughout the article. It does not refer to them as "terrorists". It does not use contentious labels. It does not go into pointless details, minuting every event that occurred in accordance to the Hollywood movies made on the subject. It is a professionally written article.

The Munich Massacre article on the other hand is a joke. The only thing missing from the article is pictures of editors giving middle fingers to the perpetrators. I am not saying that the events in question weren't horrendous. I am not even arguing that the perpetrators were not terrorists. I am just saying we should not be pushing a POV and blatantly violating the standards we use for EVERY other article on wikipedia.

Now if anyone has a serious objections to me reverting CWenger revert let them speak here. And please don't repeat "almost every publication refers to them ..." That has been discussed enough times above. That unproven assertion is both a strawman and a non-sequitur. Poyani (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not how it works. WP:BRD is how it works. You made a bold change, I reverted, and now we discuss. If we can't find a solution, we move on from there. I have suggested you start an RfC. That will get far more responses than a blanket "if nobody responds I'm going to do this". Anyway there have been two other people opposed to removing the word "terrorist", one unilaterally (as far as I can tell, Tallicfan20), and one prefers in-line attribution (Hohum). You just ignored them. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a procedural note, Tallifan20's statement isn't relevant. They said "sorry, but these guys were terrorists. They murdered with deliberate intent Olympic athletes". Those kind of statements without any reference to policy or sources must be ignored. They are not part of forming a policy based WP:CONSENSUS.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just don't get it.Not even alqaeda is directly described as a terror organization here but it's so important for this one to be.I mean maybe I'm missing something.Or this article really is a joke.206.210.107.27 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The community consensus reflected in the guideline WP:TERRORIST is pretty clear. Terrorist shouldn't be used except as an in-text attribution. Unless there is an argument which we all accept to make an exception on this page, the guideline method should stand. Alternative wording used is usually militant. Characterising me as wanting to generally keep the word "terrorist" in the article is incorrect. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Terrorist" is actually fine is some instances. The non-binding guideline is actually not that helpful, nor does it reflect consensus. IronDuke  19:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Guidelines specifically do represent consensus. Read WP:GUIDELINE "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". You need to get consensus to not follow them, not the other way around. There is no consensus for there to be an exception in this article. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In some cases, I agree with you. WP:WTA is not one of them. I could violate WP:POINT and edit it to show you how, but I'm sure you already know what I'm talking about. And even the language used in the (again, non-binding) guideline admits of exceptions. Finally, a guideline can never trump WP:NPOV. If a majority of reputable sources agree that incident/organization/individual X is a terrorist, then that's how we present it. IronDuke  01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Show how WTA, a guideline, isn't consensus. Also show the consensus that says "If a majority of reputable sources agree that incident/organization/individual X is a terrorist, then that's how we present it." You have been shown consensus which specifically contradicts both assertions. NPOV isn't being trumped - it would be enforced by not using pointy words without in-text attribution. ( Hohum  @ ) 11:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Easily done! In the first place, let me quote a couple passages from the guideline in question: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias." Also it should "not be applied rigidly." Also, the word in question "may express contentious opinion..." (emphasis added) Even with all the qualifiers enumerated, the guideline's a bit silly anyway. Pervsersion and terrorism are equivalent words? Pull the other one. Which brings me to my final point: WP:TERRORISM. Is that a wiki-project about a subject that may or may not exist? That's the consensus I look for: people doing work, not people telling other people how they ought to be working. That's in no way a jab at you, BTW, just a general observation. IronDuke  16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you to show that there was consensus to not follow the clearly written guideline for this article. You haven't done that. You also failed to explain how WP:WTA doesn't reflect consesnus, which it specifially is by being a guideline. I have no opinion about the terrorism wikiproject. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I showed you not only how there isn't consensus, but how the guideline itself doesn't prevent the use of the word. We can argue about how binding a guideline is in the abstract, if you like, but my point remains valid: the word can be used, and does not have to have an in text attribution. IronDuke  19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

article
so....is this article staying as-is, loaded terms and all?.just wondering.174.91.114.155 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO it shouldn't stay as-is. My guess is that, along with having to deal with the outcry of rewording, the scale of the editing may be too imposing for most editors to attempt. Also, agreement to do so seems fragmented among interested editors. If there was a clear mandate (opens can of worms) and a clear decision on what words to use instead of terrorist etc. (except when attributed), it would be more likely to get done. Also, the *one* revert ruling may be a hindrance to improvement in this case. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did address it and made all the changes. Unfortunately a few editors here keep insisting that we reach a consensus while totally refusing to actually argue their case.  Whenever a change is made they revert claiming there is no consensus.  Whenever the issue is raised as to why the change should be made, they just ignore it. I will address this article later.Poyani (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How did Lalkin and his roommates escape?
Current version is: "The other four residents of Apartment 2 (sharpshooters Henry Hershkowitz and Zelig Stroch, and fencers Dan Alon and Yehuda Weisenstein), plus Chef De Mission Shmuel Lalkin and the two team doctors, managed to hide and later fled the besieged building.''

The story of the escape from apartment 2 is described by many sources, but this is the only article I know of that even mentions the people in Lalkin's room. What sourse is it based on?

--Nitsansh (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the doctors were in apartment 4 and Lalkin was in apartment 5. This is sourced from both "One Day In September" and "The Blood of Israel." The article does not say that all of those people were in apartment 2.

For the record (and this is sourced from "The Blood of Israel"), this is where each of the Israelis were billeted:


 * Apartment 1: Gutfreund, Shapira, Shorr, Sokolovsky, Spitzer, Springer, Weinberg
 * Apartment 2: Alon, Hershkowitz, Ladany, Stroch, Weisenstein
 * Apartment 3: Berger, Friedman, Halfin, Romano, Slavin, Tsobari
 * Apartment 4: Doctors and assistant Chef de Mission
 * Apartment 5: Lalkin

BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible Defacement?
I think I've found a subtle defacement of this page, but given the sensitivity of the page I don't want to go messing with it myself. In the section "Aftermath" someone has linked some of the sentence: "Israeli planes bombed ten PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon, killing an estimated 200 people in response to the massacre." to the page for 'Positive Feedback'. I don't feel this is appropriate, myself.

Metacosm (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fixed this. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedwalking.
A detail about speedwalking has been added twice by the same IP. "...racewalker Prof. Shaul Ladany had been jolted awake in Apartment 2 by Gutfreund's screams and escaped by jumping off a balcony and then speedwalking through the rear yard of the building as it allowed him a particularly efficient escape."

I find it very dubious that this paper mentions speedwalking as an escape method at the Munich incident, and have reverted it. Even if true, it seems like undue weight on trivia about the method of perambulation used. ( Hohum  @ ) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct capitalization in article's name
Need to re-correct article's name to set in line with capitalization rules concerning "common names", that is - Munich Massacre (ex. Las Cruces Bowling Alley Massacre, Chuka Massacre, Falklands War and not Falklands war, French Revolution and not French revolution) and see the top category of this very article. Thankx, /188.120.136.255 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Informal name
So what is the formal name of the Munich Massacre? There are over half a million Google references to the "Munich Massacre" or "Munich massacre". It may be the informal name but it is surely the most common name. Why do we say "informal"? 76.179.5.174 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. As I know, it's only referred to as the "Munich Massacre." I could be wrong though. Perhaps "informal" just meant that it wasn't an officialy created name?  But that doesn't really make much sense, there isn't some international body that agrees on names for these things... So I'm not sure, if no one knows then maybe we should just cross out the part about "informal." -- Activism  1234  01:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as it applies to "Terrorist"
Reading through the rest of the talk page, the largest argument for the inclusion of the word "terrorist" to directly describe Black September appears to be that its inclusion is NPOV, while its exclusion would not be. This is based on the term's widespread use in reliable sources. If any of this is incorrect, please correct me.

From Resistance movement:
 * People who are described as "freedom fighters" are often also called assassins, rebels, insurgents, or terrorists. This leads to the aphorism "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"


 * neutral terms such as "militant", "guerrilla", "assassin", "insurgent", "paramilitary" or "militia".[8]

From Wiktionary's "Terrorist" article:
 * The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter, and vice versa.

From Wiktionary's "Freedom Fighter" article:
 * The same person can be called a terrorist, especially by the oppressor. At the same time, a terrorist by all means can be called freedom fighter in propaganda (e.g. the Contra in Nicaragua were called freedom fighters by Ronald Reagan).

Wiktionary and Resistance movement both classify "Terrorist" as a subjective term. While the two have functionally interchangeable denotations, their connotations are different.

Here is the NPOV guideline. From the "Explanation of the neutral point of view" section


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."


 * Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

From the "Words to watch" section:
 * There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim is an expression of doubt and can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as: John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to favor one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words; for example, John said, "I did not eat the pie." Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).

In short, the connotations of the words used in articles should be carefully watched, so as to avoid bias. As noted above, "terrorist" has such connotations. Since it is preferable to minimize potential bias stemming from the connotations of a word, it is preferable to avoid the use of the word "terrorist" except when using direct citation.

In the "Prefer non-judgmental language" part of the NPOV guide, it says that a neutral POV must sometimes be balanced against clarity. The substitution of another, more neutral word such as "militant" would have negligible impact on clarity, if any. Therefore, loss of clarity is not a concern.

Reading through the previous discussions, it seems that NPOV is being used to mean something along the lines of "reflecting the majority citable sources". However, this is inaccurate. A more accurate definition could be "not expressing a position or sentiment in relation to the subject or article that cannot be objectively proven". As the word "terrorist" expresses such a sentiment (via its connotations), its inclusion is not NPOV.

When posting a rebuttal, please quote the section of my post that you are referring to. This is not just for my own convenience (or that of whoever replies to your rebuttal), but for the sake of ease of reading, which benefits all potential editors/contributors who read this page. Aero-Plex (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Eloquently put. Agree on all points. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to remove and rephrase those "terrorist" containg sentences as good as I could. If it looked as if it could be direct quote then it remained. Hopefully the article should be more readable now. But there are still more POV issues and some parts seem not to be sourced or even WP:OR. --Magabund (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really get the initial issue here. If I understand it correctly some people are not wanting to use the word terrorist because some people reading the article might not consider the perpetrators of this event as terrorists but as freedom fighters? That's stupid! So just because some people are anti-Israeli and don't consider the organisers of this tragic event as terrorists we have to change the whole article? What about the people who organised the 9/11 attacks in the USA? Are we not going to call them terrorists either? The Munich Massacre is what it is. The reality is that it was an operation planned by terrorists. You can't sugar coat reality. If some people can't handle reality or the truth that's their own issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.90.250 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While the use of the term "terrorist" may be controversial or subjective in some cases, I fail to see how it is so here. According to Wikipedia's own definition of "terrorism," it is: "those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." This particular action fits all three criteria perfectly. The fact that the term is misused elsewhere is no call to drop it here. Also, the action is included in Wikipedia's "List of Terrorist Incidents, 1972". Do the above editors wish to argue that the word "terrorist" has no place in Wikipedia articles other than those specifically about the concept? If this attack was not an instance of terrorism, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.18.85 (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Munich
Saw you updated about Der Spiegel. Israeli documents were released today. Article about it in Haaretz is in my sandbox, if you want to take a look and add anything of interest, also in sandbox is the cite ready for a copy-paste. ColaXtra (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah these documents should be very helpful, I've had no time to go and look through them all but I'll look at your sandbox. -- Activism  1234  00:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, this article is much better than the Haaretz one, because it goes more in depth to the actual contents rather then ruminate about the contents. -- Activism  1234  00:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the ynet link! ColaXtra (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Munich massacre -- really
Has this title not ever been questioned? -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe because its WP:COMMONNAME?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because it is not. -DePiep (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good Q. Is there any source for this title? --DePiep (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty all major news outlets use this term .Do you have alternate term in mind?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * lol: your circular google search gives ... this wikipedia on top. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So?Did you miss CNN,WashPo,Haaretz and Guardian?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly you missed the thing called circular. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lillehammer affair in the lead
Per WP:LEAD, we should have a condensed version of the rest of the article in the lead. As the Lillehammer affair resulted in Israeli assassins serving jail time, I think itis notable enough for the lead. It would be great if we could discuss this here instead of removing referenced and NPOV material. --John (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying mistakenly rather than the stronger POV of killed was better, but I still think that's choosing one side point of another operation for which we have an entire article devoted to and sticking it into this article which is almost entirely about a massacre. Otherwise, we need to ask, how many details on the resulting operation for which we have an article should we include as well?  Should we include how many were killed? Those who weren't killed?  How they were killed?  Etc... It's not important here on an article almost entirely about a massacre. -- Activism  1234  15:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Abu Daoud's name
Mohammad Daoud Odeh's nom de guerre was Abu Daoud. It had the form of a kunya as had most Fatah leaders'. It means "the father of Daoud" and is a common way of addressing people in the Arab world. Abu is thus not a first name or Daoud a family name, as is often assumed. It thus makes no sense calling him "Daoud". If Abu Daoud would have been a true kunya then "Daoud" would refer to a different person (i e his oldest son Daoud).Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Operation Boulder revisited:
While doing some research on Operation Boulder, I tried looking it up on Wikipedia first. There was no page for it, and the only mention of it was in Archive 2 of Munich massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munich_massacre/Archive_2#Operation_Boulder).

The thread is as follows:

"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)"

It seemed odd to me that only one source was reviewed before this was ignored.

Here is a more reliable source verifying its existence Jeffrey D. Simon, "U.S. Countermeasures against International Terrorism." National Defense Research Institute (RAND) (1990), pg. 11. http://192.5.14.43/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2005/R3840.pdf

Statements about IOC President's speech were either unsupported or directly contradicted by the reference given
According to the page a few minutes ago, "IOC President Avery Brundage made little reference to the murdered athletes..."
 * Incorrect; source states he made no reference to the athletes. I corrected this.

"...during a speech praising the strength of the Olympic movement..."
 * Supported by reference given.

"...and equating the attack on the Israeli sportsmen with the recent arguments about encroaching professionalism..."
 * Nowhere mentioned in reference given.

"...and disallowing Rhodesia's participation in the Games,..."
 * Nowhere mentioned in reference given.

"...which outraged many listeners."
 * Supported by reference given.

The reference given is http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/world/main520865.shtml and the entire relevant quote is one sentence: "IOC President Avery Brundage never once referred to the athletes during a speech in which he praised the strength of the Olympic movement."

I'm not sure how to rectify this and the last thing I want to do is get deeply involved in Israeli-Palestine-conflict-relevant articles as a complete Wikinoob. Nonetheless, it's in need of some attention, hopefully from someone more knowledgeable on the issue and on wiki procedure. Thanks. 24.125.173.239 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus below. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Munich massacre → 1972 Munich hostage crisis – A "hostage crisis", which was the actual incident, went bad. I don't think we have any other articles about hostage taking/crisis that are named after a result of the former. Thoughts? TMCk (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's the common name, in this instance.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Google results are not really reliable but anyhow, you still get plenty of result for "munich hostage crisis" too. Question: What are scholars calling it?TMCk (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Google results are the best evidence we have of what name is the most common one. And we go with what is most common.  Not the 2nd-best, "plenty of results" iteration of the name.


 * See wp:commonname. That is the standard that this encyclopedia uses to pick article names.  Not what any individual editors prefer.  The project is an encyclopedia, and sets forth in detail how it names articles.  This is the test.


 * "Munich Massacre" is the name used 71% of the time when we look at those two iterations in ghits -- it gets 233,000 ghits vs. "Munich Hostage Crisis" 93,000. The gap is even more pronounced in Gbooks; it is overwhelming -- 99% -- preferred by 5,670 hits to 10.  Same in gscholar -- an overwhelming 98% -- by 540 to 10.


 * And if you are going to suggest a move from the status quo, you need to reflect a supporting rationale. Not raise a "I don't know the answer" question, such as "what do scholars call it?"


 * At the project, we don't pick article names on the basis of otherstuffexists or ILIKEIT.


 * And we go with what RSs call it most commonly, in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, more proper heading for an encyclopedia whatever the popular labels for the incident are. Egeymi (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reflecting that the more common name/popular labels are the current title. In this encyclopedia, we have rules which determine what the more proper heading is -- for this encylopedia.  And that rule points to the common name.  Which you agree is the current one.  If you don't like the rule, feel free to seek to change it.  But we operate within our rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Google books is a good indication of the common name "munich massacre" - 5,700+, "munich hostage crisis - 61.
 * Google scholar gives "munich massacre" - 539 "munich hostage crisis - 10. Pretty much a slam dunk - WP:COMMONNAME ( Hohum  @ ) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose An established common title for the article that identifies the event. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I sure admit that sources point to the existing title as the more common name. But what are those sources? If we leave out sources that might have a bias, including those trying to make a point an/or try to be a bit sensational the big picture looks different, at least to me. Checking on German sources (which IMO are more neutral in their choosing of wording; And as a matter of fact the whole thing went down in that country), there is quite less of support for the existing title. In my opinion we have the freedom to chose a more more precise title which is more NPOV and still quite common. Not trying to force any title here but think a decent (broader) discussion should/could be helpfully in deciding if the title should be changed or maintained as is. Also in response to the above "...identifies the event.", The main event is the hostage taking and crisis; The deadly outcome is the last (and short) result after everything that had happened before.TMCk (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have ~500 scholar hits to discredit for "Munich Massacre" to get the number near that of the 10 for "Munich hostage taking". Your hand waving isn't enough. Commonname is clear, the balance of sources are clearly overwhelmingly in support of the current title. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Hohum.


 * And thanks for also admitting that the common name is MM. We go with common name.  And frankly, this is one of the worst examples I've seen of a move nomination against an overwhelming common usage of the existing name.


 * You seem to simply have a personal point of view, which differs from the title preferred in the RSs, books, and scholarly papers. And you prefer that we adopt your POV over the usage in the RSs.  That's not how wp rules work.


 * You misunderstand the wp rules against pov. They are against editor pov.  If 98% of books and scholarly articles are using name "x", over your preferred name "y" -- that is not a sign of pov.  That is a sign of consensus among RSs.


 * As to the German approach -- first of all, I imagine it is quite possible that you're wrong. The same way you were wrong in your "what about scholarly sources?" comment above. Second, if you are correct, feel free to bring it up at the German wikipedia.  We don't name English wp articles based on how the subject is referred to in German.  I would suggest you withdraw the nom.  You asked about scholarly sources, you got your answer, it is ovewhelmiong -- time to stop beating a dead horse.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche (and else): I'd really would appreciated if you don't try to apply some bad faith on my behalf having started this move discussion. I myself am not sure which way to go. NPOV and (my) common sense made me think a move discussion might be of value here. Discussion is (almost) always a constructive way to either change things or re-affirm the current status. I'm quite sure by now that the title will remain the same, seemly being the common name. Let's let it run it's course for the seven days so in the future there is no serious doubt and a consensus link in the achieves to link to. So far I tried but failed to convince a change to a more NPOV title. Besides Ignoring all rules if it prevents you from improving an article, policies and consensus are mostly against me and I accept that.TMCk (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, in principle. The existing name is misdescriptive.  It would be appropriate if the article covered only portion in the "Massacre" section.  I agree that "Munich massacre" is the common name for the events in that section (and I have no doubt that it therefore gets a lot of google hits, or that it gets the most google hits, since that's the most critical part of the article); but it is not the common name for the entire subject of the article, which includes the hostage-taking, the massacre, and Israeli response, among others things.  The massacre makes up only 10% to 40% of the article, depending on what you count.  My only quibble (and hence my "in principle" qualifier) is that I suspect the common name for this is actually something more like the "Munich Olympics hostage crisis", rather than "1972 Munich hostage crisis".  I suspect that more people associate it with the Olympics than with the year 1972.  But either is an improvement over the current misdescriptive title. TJRC (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose because: 1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2) A simple Google search reveals that "Munich massacre" scores 233,000 + hits, while "Munich hostage crisis" scores 95,000 + hits, not even half of the former. 3) There is no need to "sanitize" the shock of what happened in 1972, precisely because it happened in the former Nazi Germany (1933 - 1945), merely 25 years after the end of the Holocaust (1939 - 1945) against the Jews of Europe, and in the very city that figured prominently in Nazism's earliest history and rise to notoriety, with the Munich Putsch (1923) and the notorious Munich Agreement (1938). 4) Thus, the events of 1972 when once again Jewish civilians, this time from Israel, were  massacred  -- and not just taken "hostage" -- on the eve of the 1972 Olympic Games -- in full view of the world's media was an act of deliberate uninhibited display of the worst sort of callous terrorism that shocked the world to its core over 40 years ago. 5) But it seems that with the passage of time, the inevitable revisionism, apologetics, and PC thinking must creep in that only benefits those who committed the crimes who would naturally want to whitewash them. IZAK (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Apart from COMMONNAME considerations, the main profile of this event was not because of the hostage situation but because a lot of people got killed. There was plenty of hostage taking in Germany in the 1970s. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no significant real-world usage for "Munich hostage crisis", according to this ngram. NPOV means that we faithful represent the secondary sources without injecting personal opinions, not that we must maintain an open mind on the issue of whether or not it is OK to murder athletes. Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The end result was a not-unlikely outcome because the guns and hand grenades that facilitated the end result were present from the start. This was an attempt to free prisoners from jails in Israel and Germany. The likelihood of the loss of lives was present from the start. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The existing title complies with policy. Munich hostage crisis may merit being added as significant alternative title. At the very least there should be a redirect to Munich massacre. I've just created one.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.