Talk:Munich massacre

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)

Notes

1. In my opinion, the article lacks details of the way some Israeli members managed to escape. It only says: "(name X, Y, and Z) managed to hide and later leave the building". A sketch of the building layout will better demonstrate how some team members were captured while others were not.
2. I created links to all sportspeople on the team, as I assume some day they will have articles, as all Olympian athletes should have. --Nitsansh (talk) 06:28, 28 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)

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)