Talk:Munich massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Reviewed version: November 14, 2006
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Talk archives
Archive 1

Contents


[edit] Missing: offer of hostage exchange

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


[edit] Broken Link

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

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

[edit] To Israeli/jewish Wikipedia editors

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

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

[edit] Page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the confusing poll: check out Approval voting.

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

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

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

[edit] Footnotes

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

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

[edit] This isn't

Neutral, neutralize or delete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] assasination of "principal planners"

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

[edit] Operation Boulder

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

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

[edit] Failed GA Application

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

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

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

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

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

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

[edit] Could the massacre have been prevented? section

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


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

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

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

Brentt 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

BassPlyr23 09:37, 26 November 2006 (EST)

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

[edit] The days before "irony"

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

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

Is it because he's Romanian born?

The sentence I'm referring to starts as follows,

"Ironically, fencing coach Andre Spitzer"

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

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

BassPlyr23 09:52, 26 November 2006 (EST)

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

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

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

According to the book "Terrorism - Inside a world phenomenon" by Barry Davies, the German police were using bolt action rifles and the terrorists were using AK47's. Barry Davies (probably not his real name) claims to be ex-SAS so probably knows his weapons. Andysm 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, according to an old segment on NBC's Dateline, a branch of the East German Olympic Team supplied the BSO with the AK-47's. I wish I could find the date and a clip from this. ----DanTD 20:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs work and editing

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

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

[edit] GSG 9

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

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spitzer and Shorr.jpg

Image:Spitzer and Shorr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision to continue the games

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] My NPOV changes

In particular I removed this section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The team in the airplane

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

[edit] Person who died during funeral

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