Talk:2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign

Name

Does anyone have any proof that "One minute of silence" is the name of this campaign? I removed the {Main} link to this article from Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics thinking that it was actually just the Moment of silence article, rather than being specifcally about this campaign. Personally I think it's a stupid campaign, I cannot think of anything more out of place in an opening ceremony than a minute's silence, but if this campaign is to have an article on Wikipedia, and if this is an official title, it should at least be capitalised as One Minute of Silence or parenthised Moment of silence (Munich campaign) to make it clear it's not just about the basic concept, with One minute of silence then redirected to Moment of silence. If it's not even an official or commonly used name for the campaign, then it should be renamed to a more descriptive title, like Campaign for a Munich memorial in the Olympic opening ceremony (presuming that now with the joys of the internet the same fuss is going to be made in 2016, 2020, 2024). FerrerFour (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been used pretty much as "One Minute of Silence." If a bunch of people want to rename it "One Minute of Silence Campaign," I'd do that. For now, I'll go ahead and capitalize it, it wasn't intentional to have it not capitalized. --Activism1234 20:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, your comments about whether it's stupid or not are irrelevant. As a note, the United States Congress, United States President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States GOP Candidate Mitt Romney, the Italian Parliament, the Australian Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, the German Parliament, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and NBC sportscaster Bob Costas would disagree with you. Personal opinions don't dictate Wikipedia policy. --Activism1234 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't give a monkeys who would disagree with me, because as I did say, it was my personal opinion, but as you seem to not have noticed in your fit of pique, I never attached any policy assertion to it. But if it made you feel happier about the injustice of it all by creating this article though, more power to you. At the end of the day, the IOC run the Olympics, and they told them no, so that really should have been the end of it. Far more good might be achieved in this world if those myriad of talking heads you cited put their energies into actually fixing the reasons why Palestinians quite like to murder Isrealis, and are not too picky about the who's, where's or when's. That would be a real fitting tribute to the murdered athletes, imho. Perhaps there should have also been a minutes silence for the millions of innocent Iraqis that died in the time since the last Olympics. Perhaps good old Mitt has something to say on that eh? Or perhaps one of those people could, y'know, take some responsibility for their rampant industrialism and properly clear up the Bhopal mess? Etc, Etc, Etc. Bob Costas from NBC in particular can take a running jump as far as I'm concerned, he wasn't so concerned about remembering victims to stop the cutting of the segmenet about 7/7 were they? FerrerFour (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice rant! --Activism1234 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This should not be the title for the simple reason that One Minute of Silence is a general ritual applied for at least several decades in many nations for many major tragedies. The most recent request that this universal ritual be associated on wikipedia only with an Israeli request for recalling Munich 72 at the Olympics from 2012 strikes me as manipulative, and offensive to those millions, who for several decades, from England, to Israel, to Japan, and wherever, have observed one minute of silence every year for some national or international tragedy. You cannot 'nab' that in Wikipedia for this ephemeral request by one nation.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"... request by one nation." You obviously haven't read any of the article. Ankh.Morpork 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, don't accuse me of anything, such as "nabbing." Secondly, consider getting the basic facts straight, and realizing it's not an "ephemeral request by one nation." Thirdly, consider my comments above about changing the title. There weren't any other Wikipedia articles called One Minute of Silence. Fourthly, consider the use of the word "ephemeral" more appropriately - a campaign since 1976 is hardly ephemeral. Fifthly, consider using what I just wrote in regards to "Munich 72 at the Olympics from 2012" (what? Something that happened 40 years ago isn't important?) I have found all of this to be extremely rude, deragatory, anti-cooperation, insulting, and highly offensive. I used this title because that's how it's been referred to. If you can show me one, for example the one about the Japanese (update: misread it, just any article in general), I'd be more than happy to use their title as an example of how to create this title. As I said before, if some editors feel that "One minute of silence 2012 Olympics campaign" is more appropriate, I don't have any strong objections to it. But I do feel very offended when editors start accusing me. --Activism1234 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, do you have any personal objections against "One minute of silence 2012 Olympics campaign?" [If I don't respond in a few hours, it's because I'm not here] --Activism1234 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'extremely rude, deragatory, anti-cooperation, insulting, and highly offensive'. That is going ballistic over a simple set of reasonable objections from someone who from his childhood associates one minute of silence with commemorations of WW1, Hiroshima, parliamentary sittings on various occasions all over the world. You're being far too sensitive to your own article's concerns, and, I think, insensitive to what most of the world associates with this universal rite. It looked like nabbing, like it or not, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention. But one has always to take into account what other communities think.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't your objections, it was your assumptions and callous defamation of the campaign with fraudulent errors which was offensive.--Activism1234 13:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What assumptions, and what 'callous defamations'? Please check your dictionary before using that kind of language.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What assumptions? I'll give one - that I "nabbed" it for an "ephemeral" request by "one" nation. --Activism1234 14:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a minor campaign from April until it took flight in late June-July 2012 it was "ephemeral" compared to the 116 years of Olympic history. Israel formally seconded the request. As to 'nabbing', yes. Inadvertently, you 'nabbed' (idiomatically 'to take for one's own possession','appropriate') a phrase that has a generic, universal meaning and converted into a nation-specific reference. The family insists that this become a set feature of the Olympics, i.e. every Olympic Games open with an expression of grief for Israel's casualties in that massacre. The Israel that made the request that the world recall this particular massacre was, contemporaneously, erasing all reference in Israeli textbooks to the nakba, part of which consisted of 24 massacres amounting to several hundred Palestinians (and I'm sure this irony motivates their opposition). The nakba is what Palestinians remember with their one minute silence, for example, but this is intensely disliked in Israel. This reflection passed through my mind while reading your work. I won't of course interfere with the page, but insist that the title be changed to avoid the clear implication of appropriation it contains. p.s. 'persaude' should be 'persuade'Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the families have been insisting this since 1976. Not ephemeral at all. Secondly, it doesn't mater how ephemeral it is - a car accident is "ephemeral," and only takes a second, but yet the effects can last a long time or be noteworthy. Thirdly, see WP:Goodfaith. You didn't mention at all in your first paragraph good faith that maybe I didn't intend what you think. Instead, it came off as a direct accusation.

And ad hominem attacks about a country over a topic that many people will harshly disagree with and eviscerate what you wrote? The reason the widows requested a commemoration is because it happened at the Olympics, not because of the country. What do you want to argue about and get off topic here? Nakba, or minute of silence? Since you mentioned both.--Activism1234 15:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make ad hominem attacks on a country.

I made an effort to try to get you to understand why the title you chose was wholly inapppropriate. Nothing to do with wiki of course, but to illustrate what kind of political chaos would occur were this to be endorsed. It's politics because while the Israeli government has been aware of the bereaved families' long time request, it only acted this year, with the present coalition. The decision to back it was for the usual leverage, and it got the usual replies by a handful of countries whose representatives make declarations for political purposes before evaluating their consequences.

Set such a precedent and the Cuban government, for one, would then line up and ask for a minute of silence for the 24 members of its national fencing team, i.e. its entire Olympic potential in foils for the next Olympic Games in Moscow, to be remembered by one minute also because the USA had advanced knowledge of the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 in which they died, and whose terrorist masters have since been protected by the US government.The US would no doubt ask for a minute of silence for the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and Turkey would wished to be named because one of the victims was a Turkish national (Melih Uzunyol), etc.

There doesn't appear however to be a CAT for Jewish athletes victims of war and terror, which I'd suggest you might create. In any case, since the Olympics interest you perhaps you might consider writing a wiki article on Olympians who died as victims of war (thus to avoid cases like Luz Long, including for example Johann Trollmann, a gypsy; Elias Katz, Finnish Jew murdered in Gaza in 1947, Alfred Flatow, Jewish; Werner Seelenbinder, a German; Roman Kantor or Janusz Kusociński, Polish; Helena Nordheim, Dutch and Jewish; Eric Liddell, English, are some of the names that come to mind. Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot make ad hominem attacks on a country." - oh please, you know exactly what I meant. If it wasn't the technical term, that's just something we'll have to get over.

"the usual replies by a handful of countries whose representatives make declarations for political purposes before evaluating their consequences." - the usual replies? Entertain me when England, Australia, Germany, and the Italian parliaments have repeatedly done such "usual replies" in similar cases with Israel? "Make declarations for political purposes" - yup, because requesting one minute of silence for 11 murdered athletes to commemorate the darkest page in Olympics history really is the #1 method in the book on how to score political points! I mean, it's got to be, since so many parliaments actually endorsed it unanimously, no matter what the faction was, so yeah, definitely for political purposes. And the consequences would be one minute to remember murdered athletes at the Olympics.

"because the USA had advanced knowledge of the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 in which they died" - again, you're babbling about stuff that has no relevance to the Olympics. Wherever they were going to compete at (if they were going to compete someplace) may be more appropriate. It also reflects so much in your character the wording of that sentence, for example, the deliberate refusal to write that members of the Venezuelan secret police DISIP were implicated in the attack as well (CIA-linked anti-Castro exiles were implicated as well). Of course, if Cuba wanted one minute of silence for them, and it made international news and got some key endorsements, I certainly wouldn't get enraged if such an article was created. That's their decision, and if it makes some pretty big news, I see no reason why not...

Your USA example of the Centennial bombing is much better. Again, if such a request is made and it makes big rounds, I'd have no objections against such an article... The difference, of course, is that as far as I know, such a request has not been made. Now, I'm not going to accuse you of being discriminatory for singling out members of Turkish origin, and I will assume good faith. But I don't see it happening that a minute of silence is made for one specific group of ethnic origin, and another minute for Turkish origin, rather than just include all the victims in the same minute. If it happens though, or is requested, it's a different story. I'm not going to let my gut feeling get in the way of the free flow of reliable information.

"There doesn't appear however to be a CAT for Jewish athletes victims of war and terror, which I'd suggest you might create. In any case, since the Olympics interest you perhaps you might consider writing a wiki article on Olympians who died as victims of war." Wow... This is... This is somehow my fault? Is that what you're trying to say? Because it sure looks like it. "OMG why you'd create article X but not article Y! Why didn't you know about Y! Why can't you do two things at the same time!" Sure, I'd go ahead and create such an article, seeing that you have no objections to it, and I appreciate the information about those people, although I'm a bit confused as to how I'd prove WP:NOTABILITY and also not violate WP:OR. Unless maybe there are other precedents... Seems interesting, keep me update on this! You're a great person, I appreciate it. --Activism1234 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it happening that a minute of silence is made for one specific group of ethnic origin

I suggest you reread your article, and do more research on the background.

Actually, my real criticism is that WP:NOTABILITY applies to recent several articles I've seen popping up: this, Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012), The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man in its original draft, etc.-the material apart from extensive lists of political reactions, is just far too ephemeral and thin to support separate articles. Virtually all the content here, apart from political reactions, is already at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. All three have no encyclopedic function other than to multiply pages on and highlight a nation's suffering from terrorism or what it argues is consistent victimization by those who interpret it, as I see it. No need to think that my suggestion on general articles is somehow devious. Not being a deleter or AfD-lister type I don't much care to fuss over them. That is why I suggested you do a more general article (sure, I'd help there), and, while looking round, I realized that it would be fair to have a cat on this, and I proffered the suggestion. It's as simple as that. The article I suggested is encyclopedic, and no more subject to WP:OR than the numerous articles listing terrorism events.Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by the ethnic origin part is that if people of different ethnic origins are all killed in the same bombing, it's unlikely that two seperate minutes of silence would be held, one for each ethnic origin, rather than include them all in the same minute. I think you know I've read the article - heck, I wrote it.

I wrote this article solely to provide information to people. When I started working on it, either the article Controversies at the 2012 Olympics didn't exist or I didn't know about (I tried searching across Wikipedia for one minute of silence 2012 etc). Still, that article is only going to summarize controversies, and for something like this that made international news and got international support from top officials, there is certainly a lot more notable news for it. The point isn't to show "victimization" at all - Black September is mentioned perhaps once or twice in the article (generally, people who spent time on establishing a country to escape persecution and attacks aren't going to want to feel "victimized" and weak once they have a country). If anything, I would've thought you'd say maybe for some reason I have a bias against the IOC (which I don't). Again, the point was just to provide information on this campaign, which was rather notable. Nothing less, and nothing more.

Before, I wasn't sure if you were trying to prove a point, be sarcastic, or were serious about creating that article. I'm more than happy to work with you on it, since I see now it was a serious suggestion. I'm busy now, but in a few hours (7 maybe?) perhaps I'll start working on one, and I'll notify you when that happens so you can contribute as well. --Activism1234 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of work to be done here, though. I've refrained from editing because I think someone who's done the basic groundwork needs a fairly wide remit to get his work done without undue challenges. I'll add a few points in a separate section. Of course, if you take up the idea I suggested, drop a note on my page eventually, and I'll see what I can due.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ON second thought, faget it. Not worth debating now that the point is recognized.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really though I think it would work better inverted,"2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign." And I never expect people to reply urgently, but according to their time zones and various works loads.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the title change, I think the one we now have parallels similar changes with Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012), and should stand. What is absolutely unacceptable is to use One Minute Silence as a title, so that anyone in the world looking up the subject of Remembrance or Memorial Day rites all over the world will get this first. That does look, unfortunately, manipulative, though I'm sure you didn't intend it, and it is the only reason I made my comments. Ps. 'persaude' in the lead should be 'persuade', as I noted above. Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some suggetions with material supplied.

• Your introductory sentence misses a crucial point, and requires the added words ‘ opening ceremony’ after 'at the 2012 London Olympics,'

The whole point of this uproar is the insistence that the opening ceremony stop to honour Israel’s slain athletes, as opposed to the informal ceremony that actually took place, and which you do not mention, to honour their memory. The informal ceremony Rogge undertook will not satisfy those who press for the adoption of this at all future Olympic opening ceremonies.

(1) Stephen Wilson, 'President Jacques Rogge Honors Israelis,' Associated Press at ABC News

• 'IOC President Jacques Rogge paid tribute Monday to the 11 Israeli athletes and coaches killed in Munich 40 years ago, leading a solemn minute of silence in the athletes village. It was the first time the IOC has honored the slain Israelis in a ceremony inside an Olympic village."I would like to start today's ceremony by honoring the memory of the 11 Israeli Olympians who shared the ideals that have brought us together in this beautiful Olympic Village," Rogge said. "The 11 victims of the Munich tragedy believed in that vision."They came to Munich in the spirit of peace and solidarity. We owe it to them to keep the spirit alive and to remember them." Rogge bowed his head as a crowd of about 100 people — IOC executive board members, dignitaries and Olympic athletes and officials — stood in silence for a minute.Rogge spoke from an outdoor stage during a ceremony promoting the Olympic Truce, a U.N.-backed initiative calling on warring parties around the world to end hostilities during the period of the games. Rogge and other officials signed the "truce wall" after the event.Rogge and the IOC will also honor the slain Israelis at a private reception in London during the games on Aug. 6. The IOC will also take part in a ceremony in Germany on the anniversary of the attack on Sept. 5 at the military airfield of Furstenfeldbruck where most of the Israelis died.'
• Ankie Spitzer, whose husband Andre coached the Israel fencing team in 1972, said in a statement that Rogge's "private moment" was just a "rehearsal" for what they expected of him on Friday. "We will continue our efforts to have the memory of our loved ones honored at the opening ceremony", said Spitzer, who will speak at a news conference on Wednesday in London.

• Rogge, who competed in sailing at the Munich Games, said Monday's tribute was heartfelt and not a response to the demands for a commemoration during the opening ceremony. "It has nothing to do with the requests," he said. "It was a spontaneous gesture from me because we are here in the Olympic Village where the athletes were killed, part of them at least. This is a place where we speak about sport and peace. It's absolutely normal I should call for a remembrance of the Israeli athletes.

(2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, Jewish Blood Is Cheap: The real reason the Olympic Committee refuses to commemorate the Israeli athletes murdered in Munich, at Tablet , July 17

• 'The IOC’s explanation is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. The athletes who were murdered were from Israel and were Jews—that is why they aren’t being remembered. The only conclusion one can draw is that Jewish blood is cheap, too cheap to risk upsetting a bloc of Arab nations and other countries that oppose Israel and its policies.'

(3) Rabbi Brant Rosen The Olympic Moment of Silence and the Politics of Victimhood,' July 25, 2012

(4) Elisheva Goldberg 'I Can't Get No... ,' 'Open Zion' ed. Peter Beinart, at The Daily Beast, July 23, 2012

• I agree with Lipstadt that the IOC’s claims to be “apolitical” don't fully hold up (she cites how they had no trouble being “political” in commemorating the Bosnian war in 1996 and 9/11 in 2002). And though I may prefer other methods for community building, I’ll say this for the Jewish sense of embattlement—free of cynicism and in all seriousness—it does wonders for the Jewish collective psyche. But then the IOC did it. Today, IOC President Jacques Rogge led a minute of silence for the 11 Israeli athletes murdered in Munich those forty years ago. It was not held, as requested, at the opening ceremony in London but instead in front of 100 people at the athletes’ village. And indeed, Rogge claimed that the dedicated minute “has nothing to do with the requests” and was instead “spontaneous,” “normal” and “natural.”
• Today, IOC President Jacques Rogge led a minute of silence for the 11 Israeli athletes murdered in Munich those forty years ago. It was not held, as requested, at the opening ceremony in London but instead in front of 100 people at the athletes’ village. And indeed, Rogge claimed that the dedicated minute “has nothing to do with the requests” and was instead “spontaneous,” “normal” and “natural.”

• But the ADL was not so easily appeased. Abraham Foxman, the National Director announced that by not holding the moment of silence at the opening ceremony, the IOC was guilty of “a continuing stubborn insensitivity and callousness to the memory of the murdered Israeli athletes.”

• Rogge is not opposed to commemorating the Munich murders in public. According to AFP he’s planning “a pilgrimage to the airfield where several of the Israeli team…were killed in a chaotic shoot-out” and being “present on the exact day of the killings…at the military airport of Furstenfeldbruck where the killings actually happened..." And, excluding the two instances Lipstadt mentions, it's hard to find any tragedy that the IOC's been willing to commemorate at all.

(5) Joel Braunold ‘Giving slain Israelis just one minute, without the Olympic Committee,’ at Haaretz July 23, 2012

• Yet, back in May, the IOC turned down the request, stating that they have paid their respects to the tragedy and that it is not appropriate to mix politics into the games. And on Sunday, the committee announced that it would not mark the anniversary of the Munich Massacre at the London 2012 opening ceremony.
• Now, if the IOC never had a minute of silence during the games that would show consistency. Yet, as Professor Deborah Lipstadt points out, the games held a minute of silence for the victims of 9/11 and another when athletes died during a training accident in 2010.

(6) Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld Shame on the Olympics,’ at Huffington Post, 26 July 2012

• The Olympics coincides with the saddest day in the Jewish calendar, the day known as Tisha B'Av, which commemorates the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70. Jewish liturgy also notes that Tisha B'Av is the day where we remember and mourn for the many tragedies that have affected the Jewish people in our history. Thus, every year in synagogue we remember that the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto -- both happened on Tisha B'Av.
• The rabbis teach that whoever does not properly mourn for the destruction of the Temple will never merit to see it in its glory. The upshot of this rabbinic teaching is that if we do not properly commemorate the tragedies and violence that happened to our people we will not be able to move beyond that darkness and celebrate successes. The lesson for the Olympic Committee is clear. You will not be able to fulfill the dream of using the Olympics as a source of peace and unity to the world if you blatantly disrespect the memories of the murdered Israeli athletes.

*Furthermore, the Jewish community around the world in a remarkable show of unity has promised to bring the memories of these 11 Jews into the liturgy of our prayer services this Shabbat and Tisha B'Av.

• In England the liberal denominations have composed a special memorial Kaddish to be recited in synagogue this weekend. And in America the Rabbinical Council of America has asked all synagogues to commemorate the anniversary of this terror attack and memorialize the souls of the victims by reciting in synagogue a special prayer composed for the occasion by the Chief Rabbi of England, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. They recommend that the prayer be recited at the beginning of Shabbat services on Friday afternoon, which in Washington D.C. coincides exactly with the moment that the opening ceremony of the Olympics will be coming to a close.

If you are not going to be in a synagogue to recite this prayer communally, then I urge you to shut your televisions when IOC Chairman Rogge rises to speak. Instead of listening to his words, remember the murdered 11 and recite this prayer:

Almighty God: We, the members of this holy congregation, Together with members of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Join our prayers to the prayers of others throughout the world, In remembrance of the eleven Israeli athletes Brutally murdered in an act of terrorism, At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Because they were Israelis, Because they were Jews. At this time in the Jewish year, When we remember the destructions of our holy Temples, And the many tragedies that have befallen our people throughout history, We mourn their loss And continue to protest against those who hate our people. We pray to You, O God: Comfort the families and friends of the Israeli athletes who continue to grieve And grant eternal life to those so cruelly robbed of life on earth. Just as we are united in grief,Help us stay united in hope. As we comfort one another under the shadow of death, Help us strengthen one another in honouring life. The Olympic message is one of peace, of harmony and of unity, Teach us, Almighty God, to bring reconciliation and respect between faiths, As we pray for the peace of Israel, And for the peace of the world. May this be Your will and let us say: Amen

(7) David Efune, http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/26/minute%25E2%2580%2599s-silence-campaign-should-be-directed-at-olympic-sponsors/ Minute’s Silence Campaign Should be Directed at Olympic Sponsors at The Algemeiner, 26 July 2012

• In this case, in order to help the IOC make the correct decision, the petitions supporting a minute’s silence should be directed towards the sponsors of the games. Companies that include Coca-Cola, Acer, McDonalds, GE, Omega, Panasonic, Samsung, BMW, UPS, BP and Visa, should be asked to withdraw their support from the morally corrupt enterprise. Today, Olympic partnership is among the most highly sought after advertising associations and is perceived as a badge of honor. However, a concerted effort could bring to the fore the more appropriate association of shame.

• Rogge’s claim that his rationale is because, “We feel the opening ceremony is an atmosphere that is not fit to remember such a tragic incident,” is simply drivel. A number of other tragedies have been commemorated at past opening ceremonies, including at the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics where the victims of the September 11 World Trade Center attacks were remembered. At the 1994 Lillehammer Winter Olympics a moment of silence was held for the victims of the Siege of Sarajevo, and at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics the same was observed to commemorate Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili who died in a tragic training accident.

• The truth of the matter is simple; the IOC fears an Arab boycott in the event that it would go ahead with the memorial ceremony. As The Algemeiner reported, “According to an interview given by Thomas Bach, the Vice President of the IOC, the threats to boycott the opening ceremony made by Arab states in the event of an official minute of silence, have led the IOC to mark the 40 year anniversary in other ways.”

• In an article preceding the 2002 Olympic Games the LA times wrote, “Over the years, according to confidential minutes from IOC executive board meetings obtained by The Times, senior IOC delegates have made it plain they do not want to risk causing offense to Arab interests.”

The Times adds, “ Sheik Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah of Kuwait, an IOC member since 1992, heads the influential Olympic Council of Asia; it is widely believed he played a significant behind-the-scenes role last year in helping secure Rogge’s election as IOC president.” Simply, the IOC is faced with a choice that pits morals against interests and the IOC has issued a resounding rejection of the moral choice.

• It is for precisely this reason that the Minute of Silence Campaign is essentially important to Israel and all Jews, because contained within its outcome lies the answer to a fundamental question, that carries broad relevance, asked by Israel supporters around the world: If our only hope is to appeal to the moral conscience of humankind, then what hope have we?

But for the IOC, the decision was clear as is often the case when a moral plea is faced with a threat against interests. The IOC has little to lose in denying the request of an Israeli widow. For Israel the simple lesson is that morality rarely trumps interests, and supporters of Israeli causes must be sure to keep this in mind if they wish to launch effective campaigns.'

These are only points for consideration. There was and still is, a lively debate within the gloabl Jewish community on this, and I think those various controversies require mention. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're correct about the opening ceremony part. Leaving it out wasn't intentional at all, and it's mentioned in other areas of the article, but should be in the lead as well and I just inserted it. The rest of the material you supplied - as I said, I'm busy right now and will have more time in a few hours, but are they all connected to one thing or each is a seperate piece? Thanks. --Activism1234 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification about the last part: You said "those various controversies require mention." What you wrote above though seems largely to support the campaign, so I'm confused what controversies you're referring to. I'd also prefer not to include sentences that are from journalists writing their opinion, since while I have nothing against those opinions, it seems to rather just support the campaign, and the concern is that including op-eds in one article from a certain journalist (with due respect, they're not in the NYT or WashingtonPost...) may lead to doing the same but worse in another article. For example, on an article about Iran's nuclear program, someone may decide to plaster the entire page with 50 opinion pieces in the semi-state run Fars News Agency. And for what? The article would no doubt clearly explain Iranian views on their nuclear program. You understand what I'm saying?

Now, the fact about Rogge in 1972, or what the widows said, or what the ADL said (it may already be in the article), I'd say is fine. The other suggestions you gave, I'd recommend to discuss individually here, as well as which section they'd go in. For example, I'd say it's fine to include Lipstat's opinion briefly as well, since her article was viewed widely and is well-known.

Thanks. --Activism1234 18:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversies Lipstadt's remarks aroused, I think 2 rabbis responded.

You probably caught this, but just in case Barbara Berger Remember my brother and the other murdered Israeli Olympians At Haaretz 1 August 2012 Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do those folks want it to be a permanent fixture of every Olympics. All the analogous mentions in the past to political events Bosnia, Sept 11, etc. were one-off occasions. I've seen several articles where this seems to be the position.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup I saw the article in Ha'aretz. I feel more OK with adding that briefly since she has more connection to the attack and the campaign than some of the other people who are just writing an op-ed "Yeah I support the campaign." And if I add Lipstadt, then it'd make sense to also add those 2 rabbis you mentioned who responded (did you include them above? I noticed you had some materials by rabbis, but looked to me like info on how it coincides with Tisha Ba'av, or a prayer to say?), but maybe I should wait for other editor's input on this. And I don't know whether they want it to be a permanent fixture. All I know is they've been campaigning since 1976. Maybe it'd change if one of the Olympics held a minute of silence (also, at the 1972 memorial, many were offended by the speaker's comments in regards to the victims, or lack thereof, which also pushed the campaign to start). But I don't see that happening really, although the campaign in 2012 really picked up and achieved some successes (the spontaneous minute, for one, which was the 1st time they did it at the Olympics). I'd assume they'll try again in 2016 as well. But if a minute was held in 2012 or 2016, I don't know whether or not they'd push for more. --Activism1234 21:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The main difference between past "political events" and this one is that in Munich it happened inside the Olympic village.

By the way, I recall reading somewhere that Spitzer's wife said Rogge specifically told her he can't do it because the Arab states will not allow it. I'll see if I can dig that up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/26/munich-olympics-massacre-fight-for-remembrance - I put it in "Initial attempts" since she's describing what happened in the past, although technically it's still relevant to the present. --Activism1234 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that relates to the present day, from a member of the IOC - http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/24/olympic-committee-vp-fear-of-arab-boycott-led-to-minute-of-silence-rejection/ also reported in http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1712062

The Guardian article also answers the question of whether they want a permanent "fixture" at every Olympics, at least as far as Spitzer is concerned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, she says just do it once and that's it. --Activism1234 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead info

Nishidani made a good update that I planned to get to but didn't get a chance.

On the 6th of August, at a London memorial ceremony for the victims, attended by IOC president Rogge, Israeli Sports and Culture Minister Limor Livnat said that "not observing a silence grants a moral victory to the evil", while two widows, Ankie Spitzer and Ilana Romana, who had asked for Rogge to be banned from the ceremony, said the IOC was only interested in power, money and politics, descriminated against the dead athletes because they were Israelis and Jews, and that Rogge had personally hurt and insulted them.

The only issue is whether it should be in the lead. Certainly mentioning in the lead a memorial was attended on August 6 may be OK. But I feel that comments, which are details, should go into the article later on, rather than the lead.

Thoughts?

--Activism1234 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you spent so much time organising the page to highlight international reactions, that you left no space higher up to the way these things unfolded. There is no section, as would be necessary, above the Reactions section, for the dénouement of the bid for a mention to be made. I looked throughout the page before making my edit, and couldn't locate an appropriate area. Since the body of the narrative remains in the lead, by default, that is the only place for it. Several things are missing in that regard.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It was not a response by the IOC. It's mentioned in teh lead and IOC response that Rogge would attend the memorial. This is a non-IOC response, and belongs there. Either way, your most recent edit, about a "coruscating" attack, seems like POV and putting it in the lead for that reason, even if unintentional. I'll move it further down, and reinsert the material into the lead about the commeorations Rogge/IOC would attend. --Activism1234 17:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

'Coruscating' is in the source. Use any other adjective, but by several accounts Rogge was subjected to very heated criticism there. The lead sums up the body of the text, and I transferred the details to the appropriate section. The lead had to be adjusted because it mentioned the London Guildford meeting as part of Rogge's response as a future event. It took place.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as Israel doesn't even allow any mention of Deir Yassin (surely much more emblematic of atrocity) then a lot of countries will surely resent a high visibility commemoration of Munich. 81.154.253.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See "Support" section. Personal opinions about alleged massacres don't dictate Wikipedia edits or articles.

Nishidani, there is absolutely no point why the lead needs to restate what is already written futher down in the article in detailed form. The lead should summarize the article, not chery pick for POV points. The way the lead was before was perfect - mentioning IOC's response briefly and what ceremonies Rogge would attend/attended briefly. The August 6 ceremony is described more detailed further below. The August 6 ceremony wasn't even an official IOC commemoration. Rogge attended it, and that was all. We're not going to put another paragraph about everything that happened for the next ceremony in Germany that Rogge will attend, when it will already be in the article, will we now? No, instead it will be mentioned briefly that this is a ceremony he attended, as part of the second paragraph regarding IOC/Rogge response. The entire section you put in the lead seems like a pile on for POV, while deleting good lead content that was already there, and cherry picking quotes (for example, making it seem like Rogge was subject to extreme verbal harrasment and that's all that happened, while neglecting to include from a reference you put in "Rogge’s speech was greeted by polite applause from the audience." Of course, there's no point for that in the lead either, but there isn't point for the other stuff). The phrasing of it also violates WP:NPOV, and just doesn't belong there at all. --Activism1234 21:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is he stuffing lead with minor deatils? The beginning should be a fair summary of overall article. This seems very biased! Crystalfile (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay we have the "newbie" reverter drifting in. Predictable. Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The passage is one line in the lead, and sharp attacks were made on Rogge and the IOC throughout July and through August on every occasion. This is still part of the campaign, apparently, since the widows and activist groups want every future Olympics to feature this proposed event.

This is the text deleted:

where both Jacques Rogge, the IOC president, who was present, and the IOC itself were subject to a sharp attacks by Israeli Sports and Culture Minister Limor Livnat and two of the widows, Ankie Spitzer and Ilana Romana, for what they deemed to be insulting behaviour. Romano told Rogge he had "submitted to terrorism", and would be "written down on the pages of history as ... a president who violated the Olympic charter calls for brotherhood, friendship and peace." Their attacks were applauded by the audience, but afterwards some attendees privately expressed discomfort at the sustained attack on Rogge, and Andrew Gilbert, formerly chair of Limmud International tweeted that “the memorial service for Munich 11 became an anti-IOC rally and heavy-handed humiliation of Rogge".'

It is half a line, and is only POV if your POV means that in covering all aspects of the campaign, nothing including the negative aspect should be included. Since the whole article is an extensive list of who backed the campaign, and only a sparse comment on those who opposed it, it is intrinsically POV. I'll therefore restore it because the section where the controversial elements are covered requires a summary (half line) in lead.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Newbies" don't mean that 1RR doesn't apply. You've violated !RR, and removed a lot of more important general information in the lead. The detailed parts go into the article sections, not removing general info from the lead and replacing it with a paragraph about "attacks" on a person. For example, we both know Twitter isn't used that often on WP, and certainly not for the lead. You can't just "reinsert" material after writing your own comment on the talk page which two editors disagree with. "I'm right, so I'm going to go put it in, 1RR or not." --Activism1234 13:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As on my page, I don't see where I violated IR but take your word for it, and will revert to where the page was before that specific edit where I apparently overstepped the mark was made. I really am bad in figuring these things out, believe me, and would appreciate an indication of where you think I must do, as I will, the revert. I took the twitter part out of the lead, and relocated it in the relevant section. By removing the passage regarding this from the lead, I thought actually I was meeting your objections, and it turns out that this isn't enough. Whatever, please tell me what page version I have to revert to. If you can't clarify this, I'll get someone who watches my page to fix it. Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear enough, I apologize, and I'll try to be clearer. I understand that often these things aren't intentional either. I commented on your talk page which version to self-revert to. I'll clarify myself just so you can understand it better for the future. Essentially, 1RR applies to specific cases where admins rule it applies - for example, all articles relating to Israel-Palestine topics. A revert is considered to be any edit that undoes another editor's edits, whether in whole or in part. I asked EdJohnston before whether 1RR would apply to this page, and he said yes, so I added the tag here. Now, your first edit, in which you inserted the material about August 6, was an edit. However, I removed that info from the lead and moved it further down in the article in the appropriate section, because the lead is supposed to be general info, not detailed info, and we're not going to discuss the details of every memorial ceremony that happens in the lead. Rather, in the article itself. For example, the JCRC is sponsoring a memorial on September 5 - we're not going to write everything people said there, if it goes in the lead at all. Instead, it was mentioned previously that Rogge would attend/attended a memorial on August 6. This isn't an official IOC commemoration either.

After I did this, you put it back into the lead, which reverted what I did. That was your first revert. After Crystal reverted that back to my version, you reverted Crystal this morning/afternoon/night (based on where you live), within a period of 24 hours (1RR applies to 24 hours, but if you wait for the 25th hour to do it it's generally considered "gaming" and also a violation, it's better to just discuss on talk page). This was a second revert, and violates 1RR.

Hope it clears up things. --Activism1234 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Relaibe sources

If a reliable source like Commentary quotes PMW, we assume that the RS did their fact checking, and the PMW claim is correct. In fact, one of the measures of the reliability of a source is how often it is used by other reliable sources. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, that appears to be an opinion piece; secondly, they're placing the responsibility for accuracy on their source. I'll post at RSN for more input. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)