Talk:Munich massacre/Archive 1

message: A new edit says that Mahmoud Abbas is a convicted pirate, and is now dead. I can't find anything to confirm this. Is it true, or should I remove it? Quadell (talk) 18:37, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
Abu Abbas was a convicted pirate, not Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen, who is now PLO chairman. Abbas was convicted of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship (during which Jewish American civilian Leon Klinghoffer was murdered) by an Italian court and sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia. He was living in Iraq during the Anglo-American invasion, and was captured by US occupation soldiers. Italy requested his extradition, but he died in custody--of natural causes it seems.
Kingal86 16:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirate?

message: I read some where that two of the coaches were in fact security officers there to protect the team. Has anyone else know of this fact or seen any information like this before?
Why is there a link to a nonexisting image in the article? 
Has it been deleted? Fuelbottle | Talk 14:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Security Agents within the Olympic Team 

message: "However, the IOC has refused requests to commemorate the event at subsequent Games." That much is fact.  This part is Zionist POV: "apparently bowing to the wishes of states hostile to Israel's existence." The following deliberate misquote is not an objective quote from a BBC report, the BBC is quoting the speculation of an Israeli IOC official: "From a BBC article: "The IOC says that to introduce a specific reference to the victims of the Munich massacre could alienate other members of the Olympic community." . The IOC did not give that as their reason, the way the quote is trying to imply. An Israeli IOC official is quoted as speculating on teh erason why the IOC refuses to commemorate the dead Israelis. You are misattributing quotes, misinterprting the reason for the IOC not wanting to turn the Olympics into a Zionist political spectacle, and you are doing it to promote a Zionist POV. REVERTED. --Alberuni 17:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're changing far more than just that one quote. Jayjg 18:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "Zionist" as an epithet is pretty telling.  The only reason why honoring the dead athletes would offend people is because the athletes are ISRAELI.  If they were Tahitians killed by nihilists we'd be honoring them each time.A2Kafir 18:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IOC is being deliberately mininterpreted by A2Kafir 

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

message: There seems to be a spirited edit-war going on here. I'd like to see if I can work out a compromise, as a relatively disinterested third-party.
Wow, there are a lot of separate points under dispute in this article. Neither version is completely better than the other version, in my opinion. There are good points in both. Hopefully we can merge the two versions. I'll list the dispute below. For convenience, I'll call one version the "terrorist" version, and one version the "kidnapper" version.
* The most basic and obvious dispute is, should we call Black September "terrorists" or not? There is a major debate on this, as part of a site-wide policy, at Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development), and any disagreement can hopefully be voiced on that page. It would be nice if we could wait until an agreement is reached there before reverting. Can we call a truce on this topic, on this page, until we get a site-wide policy?
* The "kidnapper" version names the group as Black September in the introductory paragraph. I think that's a good idea.
* The "terrorist" version claims, parenthetically, that Black September has "links to the PLO, the PFLP and the DFLP." The word "links" is rather vague here, and unwisely so, since the sentence could be read as a moral accusation against these groups. It would be better to specify the links, documenting each one, or leave the sentence out.
* Besides that parenthetical remark, the "terrorist" version provides a great deal more detail in that paragraph (At 4:30. . .) that should not be lost. I see nothing POV about saying the assault rifles were heavy or the naming of the hostages. In fact, throughout the article, I generally think we should keep the level of detail in the "terrorist" version, with just a few exceptions.
* The "terrorist" version refers to "232 Arab radicals in Israeli control", while the "kidnapper" version calls them "232 Palestinians jailed in Israel". Were they all Palestinians, or were some Arabs of other nationalities? I think it's better not to call 232 unnamed persons "radicals", and "jailed in Israel" is much more specific than "in Israeli control". My preferred version would be the "kidnapper" version here, unless it can be shown that some were not Palestinians (or were not in jail).
* The "kidnapper" version says "The German police investigation indicated that a few of the hostages may have inadvertently been shot by the German police during the fierce gun battle. However, a definitive conclusion was not possible due to the severely burned condition of the bodies." If this is true, it should certainly be included.
* Regarding the Lillehammer affair, neither version explains the event well and in an NPOV manner. The phrase "quest for revenge" is just way too POV, but the phrase "accidental assassination" is confusing. I would go with the "terrorist" version, but add in something about how it was a case of mistaken identity.
* The "Impact on the Games" section is a tough one. The "terrorist" version is generally better, but the clause "apparently bowing to the wishes of states hostile to Israel's existence" isn't verifiable. I would leave out that clause, but otherwise keep the paragraph in the "terrorist" version.
I welcome comments to any of this.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 18:38, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I welcome your intervention as a neutral 3rd party, and think all of your comments are eminently sensible.  In general I am sure any edits you make will be reasonable.  My only comment would be that many, many sources consider Black September to be a terrorist group; here is one valuable link.  Jayjg 18:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can attribute the accusation that Black September is a terrorist organization to any identifiable group that labels them as such, such as Rand-MIPT Corporation. The label reflects a POV and is not a neutral characterization. The US government apparently never labeled Black September as a terrorist group. --Alberuni 19:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The US government only started listing terrorist groups fairly recently, perhaps the late '80s, after Black September was done killing people.  So your point is irrelevant.A2Kafir 19:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you are wrong, as usual. But I take back my statement because I have discovered that the US has labeled Black September a terrorist group under the name Abu Nidal faction. .  Now the US can be attributed as the source calling Black September a terrorist organization. That doesn't make it a fact but it is a sourced attribution. You see, some of use stick to facts instead of just pushing pro-Israeli propaganda without thinking. NPOV; learn what it means. --Alberuni 19:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one ignoring facts, like the FACT that the only reason the IOC doesn't honor the athletes is that they're Israeli (excuse me, "Zionists" or "dirty Jews" to you).  A2Kafir 19:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'd like to add something about the so-called Vengeance team set up by Israel. There's a lot of nonsense talked about it, and Steven Spielberg is apparently about to make a movie about it, so I thought it'd be interesting to address it, if the page could be unprotected?  Slim 00:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't death squad be more accurate than "Vengeance team"? Were any of the hostage-takers armed when they were murdered abroad, by the way? Why were they not kidnapped like Vanunu, is it because Mossad is not allowed to kill Israelis (as I think the Mossad Wikipedia entry states)? Does that include Israeli Arabs? Kingal86 23:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli revenge

message: Whether a single person or a group of people are terorists is not a matter of opinion.  A person is a terrorist if they practice terrorism.  Here is the definition of terrorism...
* from Merriam-Webster: 
terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
* from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. 
* from MSN Encarta:  
terrorism: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.
* from Wordsmyth:
terrorism: the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.
Was the kidnapping of the athletes an unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (for ideological or political reasons)?  Yes.
Was the kidnapping of the athletes a tactic that relied on violence or the threat of violence, including bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.  Yes.  
Does the kidnapping embody the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands?  Yes.  
The only definition that leaves any room for dispute is the Merriam Webster definition, because that definition of terrorism requires the use of "terror", which is not an absolute term.
Despite the definable nature of "terrorism", and the argument that the kidnappers in question being a fact, a logical argument against the repeated reference to the kidnappers as "terrorists" can still be made: it is equally appropriate to refer to them either as "kidnappers", as "militants", as "men", as "Arabs", as "Moslums", as "people", as "Middle-Easterners", et cetera.  Since the kidnappers are obviously, by definition, terrorists, it is not the responsibility of this article to remind its readers of that fact, therefore, it is not innapropriate to replace occurances of the word "terrorist" in this article with one of the aforementioned alternate terms.  
Albruni your insertion of "(a designated terrorist organization by the United States and Israel)." into the article is innapropriate.  It is not Israel's job or America's job to define a group as "terrorist".  It is the job of dictionaries.  These dictionaries have existed long before this event happened.  
:I would argue that it is certainly not the role of dictionaries to define groups as terrorists. Dictionaries offer primarily descriptive uses of language, not prescriptive. I'm lean towards prescription myself, "correcting" "wrong" usages of words and grammar where I see it, but if the whole world is calling everyone else a terrorist, then that's what terrorist is going mean.  And dictionaries will change their definitions to reflect that "everybody's a terrorist".  Not the other way around.  The US government can have its own wacky definition of "terrorist organization", and apply it indiscriminately, and no dictionary has any power over that. That said, the line probably (wasn't) very useful unless Black September was categorized as such specifically because of the incident, and not 30 years later when everyone was spooked by terrorists (I don't actually know when they would've been). It'd also need some reason to be especially notable: I don't see how US fits that, and for Israel, well, we know from the rest of the article how they feel about the organization. At any rate, the group does fit the way that the word terrorist is commonly used now, but if a more specific word can be used instead, that's usually better. FireWorks 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The state of being a terrorist is a definable state. . . 

message: Although this article has been improved, there are still some "editorials" (ie. unsubstantiated opinions) under:
* Aftermath, and
* Impact on the games.
I'll be replacing these (obviously biased) editorials with facts and more info, the readers should draw their own conclusions.
Post any objections to my edits here. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 20:45, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
:Please propose the changes here first so all editors can discuss them before making changes.  Remember, "Be bold...but don't be reckless". Thanks. Jayjg 20:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and editorials 

message: The German snipers rifles didn't have scopes or night-vision devices, and one said that he wasn't a sharpshooter either.  This information should probably be added. Jayjg 21:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  German snipers 

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

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

message: "Willi Daume, president of the Munich organizing committee, at first wanted the remainder of the Games called off, but Brundage and others prevailed. "I too questioned the decision to continue," says former mayor Vogel, "but over time I came to believe that we couldn't let the Olympics come to a halt from the hand of terrorism."" .  More important information. Jayjg 21:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there aren't any significant objections, then anyone can; even you, for example. :-) Jayjg 21:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision to continue games 

message: What are the definitive transliterations of the killed Israelis? Time gives them as Yossef Romano, Yossef Gutfreund, Kehat Shorr/Schorr, André Spitzer, Amitzur Shapira, and Jacov Springer.  However, I also see them in the article as Joseph Romano, Joseph Gottfreund, Kahat Shorr, Andrei Schpitzer, Amitsur Shapira, and Yaakov Springer (sources seem to agree on the spellings of the other names). Jayjg 05:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UT)
:We'd have to know how they tended to transliterate their own names. Myself, I would probably prefer Yossef and Yaakov. Don't know about the others. When I was looking for articles, I found the names spelled several different ways. Maybe we should plump for the spellings used in what looks like the most knowledgeble site?  I thought we could also use their photographs, but the only ones I've found have a rose on the bottom of each photo, which others would probably say was POV, so I didn't bother. Slim 06:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
::See the list above I made, which includes a link to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs page I got it from.  A2Kafir 14:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is in section 12, "names of the dead."A2Kafir 14:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the killed Israelis? 

message: Hi ThinkPink, I reverted your edit because it seems to have deleted quite a lot of information that was properly referenced. If you want to reword something, please feel free, but the information shouldn't be removed altogether if it's relevant and has a reference.  There's been a lot of discussion on this page about various issues, so it's probably a good idea to propose major changes here first. 
Would anyone object if I swapped the order of Aftermath and Effect on the Games?  I was thinking Aftermath made more sense coming last, as it takes us to the present day, with Daoud's recent autobiographical comments.
I don't know when the photograph of the Israeli funeral disappeared. If it was removed by consensus, my apologies. Slim 05:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
:You're right, it makes more sense if Aftermath comes last. Jayjg 06:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ThinkPink's edits

message: ThinkPink, please do not remove information that has been properly referenced. The source for the IOC official's statement that to establish a memorial might alienate other members of the Olympic community is the BBC, a reputable news organization. Had this been the opinion of only one isolated IOC member, the BBC would have interviewed the IOC officially to hear their rebuttal or would have said that the IOC had no comment. But they didn't, they quoted only one IOC official, so this suggests the comment IS the IOC official position. In addition, the official is himself Israeli, which might further suggest this is not his own private view, but is the collective decision of the committee.
Please don't simply delete research that other editors have done if it is properly referenced. You're welcome to rewrite sections to make them conform more to the specific references; you're also welcome to add referenced sections of your own. Also, it would be appreciated if you would discuss your substantial edits on the Talk pages first. Slim 16:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
:You are drawing wrong inferences from bad assumptions. The quote about the policy represents the opinion of one person and is not official IOC policy. To imply otherwise based on faulty assumptions is just bad scholarship. --ThinkPink 02:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, as long as you recognize that you are wrong. --ThinkPink 05:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact on the Games

message: "members of the Israeli amateur wrestling team were taken hostage by the Palestinian group Black September". This is wrong:
* Zeev Friedman - weightlifting athlete
* Josef Romano - weightlifting athlete
* David Berger - weightlifting athlete
* Elizer Halfin - wrestling athlete
*Mark Slavin - wrestling athlete
*Yosef Gutfreund - wrestling referee
*Amitzur Shapira - athletics coach
*Andre Spitzer - fencing coach
*Kehat Schorr - marksmanship coach
*Moshe Weinberg - wrestling coach
*Yacob Springer - weightlifting instructor
Cmapm 11:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not only wrestlers 

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

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

message: Seems to me that "hostage-taker" would make more sense than "kidnapper", no?  They were 'captured' for an objective other than a ransom...in my mind, that makes them hostages, bargaining chips...not kidnap victims. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'll point out we state hostage-taker Jamal Al-Gashey is still at large (referencing a 1999 movie appearance), then later state Of those believed to have planned or executed the Munich massacre, only Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the man who says Munich was his idea, remains alive, recommend somebody find/fix that error Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm on a talkpage and ''not'' complaining about POV or Sources...

message: It seems, as with any Israeli / Palestinian Discussion That this page causes a lot of Controversy. I'm Neutral, and neither Jewish, Israeli, Muslim or Arab and am very interested in Conflict Resolution and the History behind such, People have been Spouting their own POV too much already here.
I disagree with the article title, perhaps "Munich Olympics Hostage Crisis, Munich Hostage Crisis, and Olympic Hostage Crisis" etc. I do not know what the Palestinian/Arab Side called it but I have never heard it called a "Massacre" in any other context. And was surprised it was called such on wikipedia, By Definition Massacre (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Massacre) would mean indiscriminate killing of all hostages. This would imply as soon as they entered the Israeli Accommodation, Or a Premeditated Murder of the Israelis, when in Fact they only killed when (as they saw it) necessary, and finally when they realised there was no way out. They Knew the Hostages were worth more alive than dead. Therefore the title of the article is inaccurate from a NPOV.
While Black September are described many times, too many in fact, as Kidnappers, the Term can be replaced by Hostage Takers and /or Terrorists, in different contexts, there is a Fine Line Between the two terms in this case and with the benefit of hindsight the Hostage Takers could be described as Terrorists. Not Kidnappers! They Acted as Part of a Larger Campaign with sanctions from higher echelons of the Palestinian Movement to influence the Israeli Government to do their will. However, if they had not had to kill the First 2 Hostages and then got their demands and freed the remaining Israelis on save arrival in Cairo could they be described as terrorists. I think Hostage Takers is the best Option.
I agree with previous users that the definition of "Terrorist" should not be based on the US or Israeli Classification of Such. Particularly the US, They Classify any armed group that is not a recognised sovereign force, nor a Recognised Belligerent Force in a conflict or at odds with US Foreign Policy as terrorists. Today's Terrorist is Tomorrow's Statesman. George Washington was once described as one by the British.
In the Dictionary definition of Terrorists could the Mossad Vengeance Squads be described as Terrorists Also?? If the Israelis want to Classify Palestinians as Terrorists then how do you classify a Group Sanctioned by a Sovereign Government into Actions that breach International Law, Moral Law, Human Rights and Their own constitution which calls for Due Process in the Justice System? That Is too big an issue for here but the Question needs to be asked? I think the New Stephen Spielberg film (which I have not seen) will raise these questions And More. 
In Acting in Such a way the Israeli's eye for an eye attitude alienates them from the international Community (Apart from the US) and polarised the Situation in the Middle East.
Stabilo boss 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your points that you've made and think you've backed them up well.  I do however, have to say that I think the use of the word "Massacre" in the title of the article is highly accurage.  Webster defines "Massacre" as 1)the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty and 2)a cruel or wanton murder.  Additionally, it seems to fit nearly to a word the definition supplied in wikipedia massacre. 4.225.22.217 01:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Stabilo boss on a number of points. In Klein's non fiction 2006 book on the subject and in the film One Day in September, and numerous news articles, the terrorists opened fire on two separate occasions at fleeing Israeli athletes within minutes of the start of the hostage taking. This calls into question your claim that they only killed when they considered it neccessary (ie. they already had some hostages - why shoot at others already out of the building (one out a window, and one in underground car park if they had not intended to kill some?). As for the Massacre debate I suggest you google the word and see how many articles refer to the 1972 Munich Massacre to give you a very firm answer that there is great consensus on calling it the Munich Massacre. I suspect if you were truly 'neutral' and honestly thought deeply for a few minutes, even a few seconds, on how it must have felt to be sitting defenceless, bound hand and foot in a helicopter as someone leans in a starts shooting at you and your fellow athletes, that you would agree it would equal the definition of a massacre. Anything else is political correctness gone mad. Maroubrakid 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, Article title and use of "Kidnappers/Terrorist" 

message: "When it became clear that the perpetrators would not face justice in Germany" - removed, could be replaced with something like 'Frustrated with legal proceedings in Germany' or somesuch, but 'justice' is far too loaded here. Comments about the 'indifference' of German police are a little odd, too. Not to mention using WorldNetDaily as a source - that's tantamount to using an article from 'Pravda' as a source to justify a statement relating to the wonderful things the Soviet Union did for Afghanistan in the 1980s. Colonel Mustard 14:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some of us do not know why WorldNetDaily is bad. Feel free to help this article become more useful by quoting useful sources... and if it turns out that WND has false info on it's web site, we'll remove it. --Dijxtra 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written article 

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

message: I can't understand why Operation Wrath of God is not in its own separate article.  I don't know if this has been discussed or decided before, but they seem to be quite distinct things.  Obviously there would have been no wrath of god without the the massacre, but then there would be no War on Terrorism without September 11, and they have separate articles.  There's some rule or guideline that redirects shouldn't suprise the user, and since typing in "operation wrath of god" brings you up to this whole article, I think its quite confusing.  What would be the harm in making a separation, especially since each has substantial material to stand alone?  Joshdboz 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Far as I can tell, there isn't a separate article simply because no one has written one yet.  I certainly don't see any reason why there shouldn't be an article.  Write it! -- Jonel | Speak 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Articles? 

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

message: Which one of these statements is true?Kidigus 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...never fired a shot..." vs. "...shot and killed the fleeing terrorist..." 

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

message: Munich massacre → Munich Olympic massacre – "Munich massacre" is not a canonical name, and as a description it is not transparent: it might plausibly refer to some Nazi atrocity, or even a football match. jnestorius(talk) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the discussion so far, I've replaced the simple yes/no option with an approval voting list; you can support or oppose any or all options. If any option has more than 70% support then the one with most support will be the name as per guidelines.  Add any other options if you like. jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Add *Support or *Oppose to any or all options, followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Option 1a: Munich massacre====
The existing name.
* Oppose jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose to any or all options, followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Option 1a: Munich massacre====
The existing name.
* Oppose jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The existing name.
* Oppose jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1a: Munich massacre

message: Same as the existing, but with capitalization.  If "Munich Massacre" is a well-established name, maybe it should be treated as a title rather than a description.
* Oppose but better than 1a jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1b: Munich Massacre

message: *Support jnestorius(talk) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2a: Munich Olympic massacre

message: As 2a but with an S in Olympics
*Support though I prefer 2a jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2b: Munich Olympics massacre

message: *Support as good as 2a for me. jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3a: 1972 Olympic massacre

message: *Support though I prefer 3a. jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3b: 1972 Olympics massacre

message: Comment. Too bad that more people did not participate so far. I think that both Aldux and myself opposed not because we felt the current name is right, but because your proposal wasn't right either. The discussion format somehow encourages to vote 'yes' or 'no', but in fact we need a wider compromise on a multiple selection of choices. Duja 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think policy allows for what you suggest so I've rejigged it accordingly.  I wouldn't presume to cast your votes so please fill them in. jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion