Jump to content

Talk:Munich (2005 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Completely ridiculous

[edit]

I see that mention of the Lillehammer affair has been previously removed, but frankly I am shocked and amazed that this article contains no mention of the fact that Spielberg completely glossed over this event. User:Wodan seems to think that this incident is "irrelevant" but it is hardly so. The murder of Ahmed Bouchiki was part of Operation Wrath of God and for Spielberg to gloss over the fact that his oh-so-complex Mossad killers happened to shoot an innocent man in cold blood, having misidentified their target, is a very politically loaded action. The Lillehammer affair was an enormous embarrassment for Israel, and including it in the movie would have ruined the sense of "balance" he was trying to achieve and result in even more condemnation from the far-right Zionists who hated this movie for daring to suggest that Palestinians bleed the same color as Israelis. However that doesn't mean that it isn't relevant for the article. I think people coming to Wikipedia to learn about this movie should know that Spielberg left out a very important part of it. The hunt for Ali Hassan Salameh, whom they were trying to kill when they murdered this waiter, is a huge part of the movie, so I'm kind of confused as to how people think that it isn't worth mentioning that Spielberg glossed over the fact that they shot a waiter they thought was him. Unless anyone can give me a really convincing reason why not, I'm adding to the Criticism section a mention in the Guardian of a BBC documentary that criticizes the movie for not mentioning Lillehammer.Iamblessed (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Of course they killed him in "cold blood" They didn't know he was innocent.

Besides, this is a feature film (albeit a lousy one), not a documentary.

--93.196.146.105 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Do we have a source showing that Jonas does not stand by his book? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That he talks about it on his website [1] suggests he still stands by it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slim -- Jonas, who may be an innocent dupe, is quoted in many sources as stating that “certain details of the story were incapable of being verified.” He sued Aviv over HBO royalties, in 1989 I believe.
Please sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.
Hi, that's not the same as saying he doesn't stand by it. He clearly does stand by it, but acknowledges that not everything could be independently verified. I'm not saying I believe it, by the way, or disbelieve it; I'm just concerned that we should be accurate. Also, he seems to spell his name with a J so we should do the same. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the phrase "It is NOT partially based on "Vengeance" -- it is entirely based on it" at the top of this page? Every professional news article mentions that the filmmakers claim it has multiple sources. Just because one source is more prominent than the others, does not mean there weren't others.--Mr. Cool 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
In the controversy section, there is the following phrase: "In a Time Magazine cover story about the film on December 4, 2005, Spielberg confirmed that Aviv is the source of the film and that he (Aviv) had second thoughts about his actions." The Time article does not mention Juval Aviv and in fact includes the following phrase: "The moviemakers would not reveal the identity of the real Avner, whom they talked to at length during their research." It is factually incorrect to state that the filmmakers are on the record confirming Aviv as a source.--Mr. Cool 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT partially based on "Vengeance" -- it is entirely based on it. Not one other source has been identified.

Actually, Spielberg says that it is partially based on interviews with the source. Even if Vengeance and Munich have the same source, it isn't entirely based on the former. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read the book. The movie deviates somewhat IMHO....Tomcat200 23 May 2006

Sources Not Used

[edit]

I think we need links and references to many other sources that Spielberg may have used or chosen not to use, that serves imho to illuminate more on how and why he made the movie, and give background for readers that want to know more about the real story behind the film. One source I have not yet seen mentioned on Wikipedia (in this or the main Munich massacre article) is the Discovery Channel a while ago aired a documentary on the dramatized "Avner" group of the movie. It is called "Munich: The Real Assassins" and is being re-aired (naturally due to the new publicity) on Jan 22 10pm and I am setting my Tivo.

NPOV

[edit]

This afternoon I edited this article for NPOV. Among other things, I amalgamated the controversy surrounding the movie and the book into a paragraph in the 'Film' section, so that everybody's aware that these are debated and contentious issues. I also collated information about whether Bana's character actually portrays Avner (ie, Aviv): neither IMDB nor the official site refer to his character as Avner. If there are definitive sources, I'd be keen to see them. Otherwise, I guess we'll all have to wait until the movie comes out. Caroline Sanford 08:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check Time Magazine's cover story EXCLUSIVE: TIME Magazine FIRST to See ‘Munich’ dated Dec. 4, 2005. He's Avner.68.231.217.37 12:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jolly good; this wasn't availablein the Antipodes when I wrote my comments. It's nice to see there are some facts around. Caroline Sanford 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And now there are more facts around. The Time article, here in full does not say that Avner is Aviv. It says that Bana's character is named Avner Kauffman and that the movie is based on true events and a book by George Jonas. So, as per below, I have removed references to the Time article saying that Avner is Aviv. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 22:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? Nonsense

[edit]

Caroline --

There is no source whatsoever that this character is an amalgam. There is no evidence that either Spielberg or Kushner ever talked with a single Israeli intelligence official or with a single veteran.

The movie credits specifically state that it is based on "Vengeance" and the posters that "this is what happened next." And in Time Magazine, Spielberg clearly states he talked with "Avner" e.g. Yuval Aviv. Although their PR guy claimed that they spoke to "many sources" he refused to name a single one.

If the film is based on any verifiable source, I will agree that the facts are in dispute. But believing Aviv on his own word is rediculous, certainly not after his Lockerbie debacle.

Why would they suddenly drop the title after photography was completed -- without a replacement title -- shortly after the controversy became public.

What do you mean when you added "it has been asserted"? You mean by staffwriters of Ha'aretz, the San Francisco Chronicle and other papers?

I am a journalist of 35 years experience. Your changes to this entry are not neutral. This smells of commercial spin-doctoring.

And in 1972, the word for terrorist was terrorist. Period. An operative (your word) was a guy who followed another guy and took pictures. The widows and orphans of the Israeli athletes call them terrorists, the dictionary calls them terrorists, lets leave it at that. Politically correct terms like "operative" or "militant" or "activist" are not NPOV.

Unless you have anything other than Spielberg's word, i must consider your changes vandalism. 68.231.217.37 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are people actually trying to argue that we shouldn't use "terrorists" in relation to the murderers (and supporters/financiers/etc) of the Olympic team in Munich? Political correctness is getting so disgusting nowadays. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it's a duck. GreatGatsby 02:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
68.231,
"Vandalism"? "Commercial spin-doctoring"? You sure know how to win people over to your point of view.
Which is what this is. This article plunges into the discreditation of the book and the film before it adequately describes either.
A better approach would be to create a sub-section called "Controversy", and move the book-related information to an appropriately-titled article, which is exactly what I have done.
That is all. Caroline Sanford 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

[edit]
I've removed the implication that the main character is a composite character, because he's clearly Avner from Vengeance; if Avner was a composite character, that's another matter. It would also help to have sources for the controversy paragraph. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 68.231, I've made a few changes to your recent edit. As a rule, many WP editors try to avoid using the word "terrorist" unnecessarily, so I changed it back to "operatives"; however I won't object again if you have strong feelings about it. Also, when you quote someone, if you could provide a citation, it would be appreciated; and rather than saying "journalists familiar with X" or "critics," it's best to provide names and attribute the view, with a citation. See WP:NOR and WP:V. In that way the edits will stick, whereas without that information they're likely to be removed at some point. Finally, just a small point about formatting, when we quote, we put it in quotation marks or we indent. There's no need to do both, or to add italics. See WP:MoS. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Im a terrorism survivor, not an "operative-ism" survivor. I know what the word means.68.231.217.37 12:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word is bandied around so much that it can be hard to pin down an exact meaning, but I take your point and I won't pursue it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Controversy section needs some clean up. Firstly, "the book and the film" should be restated.
The following phrase, in that section, is ambiguous and misleading: "None of its plot regarding the alleged Mossad agents or their methods has been independently verified, which journalists familiar with intelligence operations argue detracts from its credibility as an historical source". Which aspect of the plot and which methods haven't been identified? The "Wrath of God" missions and the gunning down of the PLO have been discussed in several books. The Lillehammer Affair is a well documented attempt by the Mossad to document assassinate PLO terrorists using hand guns. The controversy lies with the particulars of the team mentioned in Jonas' book. The phrase is too general and, in my opinion, implies that the whole notion of Mossad hit teams is doubtful. --Mr. Cool 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll search for the actual newspaper and magazine articles that criticize Vengeance and, by relation, Munich. Right now, the Controversy section seems to suffer from the fact that it has been written largely by only one author.--Mr. Cool 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ive gone around posting this all over wikipedia. Terrorism is the act of causing terror. A terrorist is someone who causes terror. False Prophet 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can of worms, meet can opener. Can opener, can of worms. Great. Now we're all introduced, let me just say, either we adopt a clear convention for what constitutes an act of terror, or we stop the assumed negative bias on the term terrorism. Nelson Mandela, American Forefathers, the Scottish at several points in history, the French resistants... these are all terrorists, no? If not, then what is terror? Is it only terror when you consider it wrong? Or does being afraid of a Hitchcock film make Alfred a terrorist? It has become a loaded term, and either needs to shed the loaded meaning, or develop some more precise criteria, because we can't go on using it if its going to cause futile PC debates like this. Edward Grefenstette 11:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is a standard definition of Terrorism, which is, "Terrorism is the act of using physical force or violence, or the threat of using such, to achieve some (usually political) goal, by an organization (or individual) not allied with any government. I believe the key part is not allied with an official government. When a government does it, it is called War. And, yes, it has nothing whatsoever to do with which side one is on. The Stern Gang and Etzel (Irgun) in 1947 committed terrorist acts against the British military, and the Al Fatah committed acts of terror against Israel and its citizens and Americans in the more recent past. Not to mention all the hundreds of other terrorist groups, such as Colonial American groups (don't recall if the Sons of Liberty or Green Mountain Boys are in this group or not), airplane hijackers to Cuba or Algeria in the 1960s, etc. etc. 66.108.4.183 18:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Alleged'

[edit]

I have made some amendments to this paragraph:

Munich is a 2005 film directed by Steven Spielberg about the events following the 1972 Munich Massacre. It follows an alleged Mossad squad, led by "Avner" Eric Bana, that is ordered to track down and kill the Black September terrorists thought to be responsible for the Israeli athletes' murders. The movie examines the actions of the purported Mossad group, and the alleged psychological toll that it took on the agents.

If you didn't know anything about this film, here's how the paragraph reads:

Munich is a film about some people who really existed, who tracked down the Black September terrorists. Possibly, they were Mossad agents. The movie examines the actions of the people who claimed to be a Mossad group, and the toll that this apparently took on them.

Whereas, what I think you're trying to say is this:

Munich is a film about Mossad agents tracking down Black September terrorists; they hunt down the terrorists, which takes a psychological toll on the agents. Whether this movie is based in fact or fiction is a matter of some debate.

I have made amendments as appropriate. Caroline Sanford 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

The intro states that Jonas' book was based on Juval Aviv's account. This a matter of debate. Jonas has never identified who Avner is and it is factually wrong to state Aviv is the source for Avner. The introduction is misleading as is and should be altered so that Aviv is not mentioned, but instead perhaps a mention to Jonas' controversial sources.--Mr. Cool 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since writing this, I have actually read reports in both NY Times and LA Times confirming Aviv as Jonas' source.--Mr. Cool 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, the information in the parentheses, while factually correct, interrupt the flow of the introduction and serve no purpose in explaining the film.--Mr. Cool 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing the whole episode involving bicycle pumps in another movie -- from the seduction attempt at a bar to the execution of the hostile agent with the bicycle pumps. Can anyone confirm this? I think a reference to that other movie can be added to the article. --Faustus 12:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive searching, I have found suggestions that this episode is copied from "Agents Secrets" movie with Monica Bellucci. I am not sure whether this is the movie, can anyone confirm?--Faustus 14:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Vengeance" was made into the HBO movie "Sword of Gideon" [2], perhaps that's what you saw?--Lord of the Ping 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the similarity to "Sword of Gideon" is a controversy that should be mentioned in the article. Consider this Wall Street Journal article, or this blog post for the specific reference to the bike pumps. --Faustus 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Magazine article

[edit]

... can be read here. It does not say that Avner Kauffman is based on Juval Aviv. Aviv's name is never mentioned in the Time article. The article only confirms that Munich is based on Vengeance; it also says that "The moviemakers would not reveal the identity of the real Avner".

Thus, I have edited the sentence:

In a Time Magazine cover story about the film on December 4, 2005, Spielberg confirmed that Aviv is the source of the film and that the latter had had second thoughts about his actions.

Since it isn't true. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Fresh Air interview of writer

[edit]

Interview on Fresh Air

Pulitzer prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner co-wrote the screenplay for the new Stephen Spielberg film Munich. Kushner won a Pulitzer for his 1993-1994 play Angels in America, which was performed in two parts and set in New York in the mid-1980s in the midst of the AIDS epidemic.

Holon67 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lillehammer affair

[edit]

Removed section titled "Historical inaccuracies" (a POV title) that discussed the events of the Lillehammer affair. While it has been documented that the Lillehammer incident was a mossad debacle, it is not directly relevant to the events of the movie, since the team the movie portrays was completely not related to the event, which was run by a different team. It is extremely biased to say the movie is historically inaccurate by leaving out the event, since none of the characters in the movie were involved in the event. Otherwise, the movie would have to include every single Israeli counter-terror actions in 1972 and 1973, as well as depict a comprehensive list of all terrorism around the globe in those years. Obviously not within the scope of the movie. Wodan

I think this objection is disingenuous. Different team to what? In reality, the assassinations were carried out my many different teams of Israelis. In the film, though, Spielberg explicitly says that the team he shows is in charge of all European assassinations. Which includes Norway. Artistic license (a film portraying the deeds of lots of different teams wouldn't work dramatically - too many characters, too many different scenes, no chance for character development, etc.)
That being so, I think it's fair criticism to say that ignoring the murder of a waiter in Lillehammer by Israeli assassins is a historical inaccuracy. And not one you can explain away via artistic license, but only through bias. Or fear (perhaps Spielberg was too afraid to show Israel in a bad light, because it might blacken his public reputation?) I don't know. I do know that it's a notable omission, especially for a film full of such pretentious moralising (again, Spielberg chickens out - he can show us Israelis justifying assassinating Palestinian terrorists, but balks from "justifying" the murder of a Moroccan waiter. It could have been done - collateral damage and all that - but I have a feeling that Spielberg found the "justifications" repulsive. And rather than examine THAT, he ignored the whole thing.)Steve3742 (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the film does adress this affair, although entirely non-factually - the scene where a waiter is killed at a party and the group flee (I think this is possibly supposed to be the lillehammer affair)

As I recall, the "waiter" in the scene you mention was armed and at a party attended by Ali Hassan Salameh, which changes it considerably from the murder of an unarmed waiter who'd never even heard of Ali Hassan Salameh.Steve3742 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Themes" section

[edit]

Is this really necessary? I don't think it adds very much to the article, nor is it particularly useful. I think these could be derived from a short sentence or two earlier in the article like, "It deals with/Its themes include _, _, and _." But most could probably get the idea from the plot description (which is choppy in itself). Brutannica 18:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely unsourced and strikes me as original research. It should absolutely be removed. An encyclopedia article should not be trying to interpret the film. -- MisterHand 05:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear supergeniuses, you have a lot of censoring to do if you are going to think of wikipedia as your momma's encyclopedia, i mean, the encyc your mother purchased, eg, just one example: Themes_and_discussion. WHAT! Discussion?! Holon67 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sword Of Gideon

[edit]

If you haven't watched Sword of Gideon, do so. It's the same story, but better told.

But lacks Spielberg flare and storytelling ;P 40oz 2 Freedom 02:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. While Sword of Gideon is not exactly great filmmaking, Munich is excrutiatingly bland, boring, and colorless. I just screened it last night; a terrific disappointment. Where is the psychological tension? Where is the moral conflict? Where can we find a fine performance? Where is Hitchcock when we need him? 66.108.4.183 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth[reply]

DVD availability

[edit]
Should a note be added to the DVD release section about the unexpected demand for the 2-disc DVD? It's only been out for about a week and already it is essentially out of print. R.E. Freak 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Maker Suicide?

[edit]

Evidence for suicide: Robert is a toy maker: immediately before his house blows up, a toy ferris wheel rotates and completes an obvious electrical contact. {{subst:24.8.231.234|24.8.231.234}}

I will double check the scene. It didn't look that clear, but maybe I'm wrong. MilesVorkosigan 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it was said that bombmakers are often killed by their own devices, I don't think it was a suicide. We saw him lay his equipment everywhere, and doing all his stuff. Then the little character on the whell touch the explosives, I'm thinking "pulling the pin" or whatever had to be done (hence the delayed reaction of the explosion). 40oz 2 Freedom 00:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just went and watched it a couple of times in slow-mo. It doesn't look like the silly thing actually touches the contact, but that might just be a filming glitch. With the movie paused it sure looks like the little figure on the wheel was meant to touch the contact and the blurry cylinder it's attached to might be the grenade he took out of another bomb. MilesVorkosigan 05:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rented the movie from Mickey D's (RedBox), and I recall that that version distinctly showed a rotating thingy attached to the ferris wheel striking another object not on the wheel. I suggest that this, if not evidence, is inference (of premeditated suicide), a literary device critical to properly appreciating an author's intent. If you don't agree, you may wish to fix that grammatical error, "many bomb-makers are die in accidents."--24.8.231.234 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the plot to say he was simply killed in an explosion. I would hope that before someone changes it (back) to suicide, they can offer good and specific evidence from within the movie that it was in fact a suicide. If there is some other evidence/speculation suggesting suicide that was not in the movie, then that should be made perfectly clear (in whatever way is appropriate). This is, after all, an article about the movie. After viewing the scene several times, there is absolutely nothing that points to suicide. It's remotely possible the little ferris wheel had something to do with the explosion, but it in no way suggests suicide (And it doesn't actually make contact... it stops short of making any contact.) Jbarta (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Juval Aviv, Israeli Defence Force (Res.)

[edit]

Avner was a Captain in an Israeli Defense Force reconnaisance commando unit before he did security for El Al. Unit was most likely Sayeret Shaked according to the webmaster of the Israeli Special Forces Homepage @ www.isayeret.com. Reading the book was interesting in that Avner had a major falling out with Mossad and stayed in America to start a new life.

What I don't get is if Avner and Aviv are the same person then after the falling out why did he get a promotion to major in the reserves?

I like to mention also that in the late 1960's early 1970's, famed Israeli commando Muki Betser, was trained by an American Ex-Marine named "Dave". Avner says he got pistol training with an American guy named Dave as well. Mr Betser and Avner did work for El Al at one time. Maybe Betser knows who Avner is exactly.

Tomcat200 23 May 2006


French contact

[edit]

Louis and Papa "French contacts". Fact or Fiction? They hated the Nazi's the Vichy, Stalin and the Americans. Their invaders and liberators! Who were they? French aristocratic Communists? Opus Dei? They remain elusive after all these years?

Dean1970 12 June 2006


I don't know who they are, but I would like to know. I believe they may have been simple black marketeers, willing to work for the highest bidder.

The article itself states that this part of the film plot (the use of outside sources to aid in locating the Arab terrorists) was not taken from Jonas's book. It was dramatic license by Spielberg (i.e. fictional). The Israelis used only their own sources. 66.108.4.183 19:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they were real or not is a different question, but the characters of Louis and Papa are in Jonas' book. The presentation of these characters isn't identical between Spielberg's film and Jonas's book but they are in both and they are outside sources of info. in both. If they are fictional, the fiction is of Jonas' creation, not Spielberg's. Nuclare 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the movie made it clear that they were 'mercs' like Avner. However, "Papa" respected Avner because he (thought) he did what he did because it was his job, not out of idealogy or nationalism. I'd say they were Anarchists if anything ...

To the original question, Andreas (the junior contact) said "My family sacrificed so much to rid us of Vichy scums. That was for making way for the Gallist scums.....Rid of Hitler, replaced by Stalin and the Americans. We don't like getting involved with Governments". Not aqn exact quote, but he refers the new regime (Charles de Gaulle) as scums.83.108.30.208 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length of plot section

[edit]

Does anyone else feel that the template at the top of this article is uncalled for? The plot summary seems perfectly reasonable to me, as the other sections of the article are similarly thorough. If there is consensus, I will remove it. --Mus Musculus 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of Murderers

[edit]

Killing should never be glorified. Assassins shouldn't be shown as heroes. Very disappointed with Spielberg to go ahead with this film after making films such as Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan that have a brush with similar themes in relation to Judiasm and death, I feel that the film has put Israel in a far worse light, even if actions were never fully acknowledged. Londo06 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of misses the point that the events happened - I know lets just ignore things in life we don't like! Presumably the writer is none to keen on soldiers either - good job someone else risks their life to keep him/her safe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.64.89 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Munich 1 Poster.jpg

[edit]

Image:Munich 1 Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mossadteam483.jpg

[edit]

Image:Mossadteam483.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Banamunich.jpg

[edit]

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flashback in the end

[edit]
In the end of the film , where its some guy is having sex with some woman, is there a flashback with it. Its the Munich Massacrae , and its jumps back and forth . Rio de oro (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a question? VenomousConcept (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

grammar

[edit]

i just read the article, and i am wondering if the sentence: "The group go to Rome to track down and shoot their first target..." is correct English language? Isnt it supposed to be "The group goes to Rome to track down and shoot their first target..."

It all comes down to whether you treat 'group' as a singular or a plural. 'The group goes' singular or 'The group go' as in 'they go' as a plural. Personally I think 'the group' is a singular, but I think either are acceptable. Apparently the Americans are more likely to treat a word like 'group' as a singular, wheareas the British are more likely to treat it as a plural.
VenomousConcept (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected

[edit]

I've semi-protected this article for one week due to apparent sock-related edit warring without discussion. The talk page is the appropriate place to work out these differences. Will extend semi-protection if the problem continues. Cool Hand Luke 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents!!

[edit]

It is wrong to describe the Palestinian in that movie as terrorists because terrorists, by definition, attack random people to achieve something while in that movie the Palestinians attack specific targets. The phrase "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents" is obviously a propaganda. Spielberg wants to show that both sides killed people but they had different ways to do that. Trying to make the Israeli side moral by saying "agents" and the Palestinian side immoral by saying "terrorists" has becoming a sort of an old trick and a sick one to exist in a public place like wikipedia. Lets make Wikipedia a place for more sophisticated articles clean of this kind of things.

The phrase "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents" only appears once in the article, and it is used directly prior to describing the two as morally equivalent in the opinion of the filmmakers. "Palestinian terrorists" does not appear anywhere else in the article. So I am not sure what the problem is. Can you point to a specific place where you think the article is biased? –CWenger (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that somebody as a terrorist, while he/she is not, is like saying it more than once especially in a website like Wikipedia because people are reading this article not only once and hence this sentence is actually repeated everytime someone reads this article. Would you like someone to call you a terrorist "only once" and write that on Wikipedia?

This is one thing, the other thing is that would you think it would be a problem if the word "terrorist" was before "Mossad agents"?

Moreover since, from the filmmaker point of view, both sides are the same then their descriptions in the article should be the same as well by putting some similar adjectives next to every party. For example how about putting the word murderers before "Mossad agents" or, which I think is better, remove both negative adjectives for both sides and only describe their negative actions in the movie. The filmmaker did not describe anybody by anything and his point of view was clear that both sides were guilty so putting this one word, again, next to Palestinians makes them not only guilty but ..well. terrorists!!

Other than this and that, describing wrongfully one side by terrorists and saying nothing about the other side would be a sort of a double standards especially in a public place like Wikipedia. You can have opinions here in discussion but the main article should be fair, neutral and honest.

Removing the word terrorists from the sentence "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents"

[edit]

For the reasons I have explained before I think this word should be removed. I am going to remove it and if you want to put it back please give a good reason with references.

If you look at the article that this section of the page refers to, "Palestinian terrorists" is the phrase used multiple times, so I changed it back (along with the quote, which had an incorrect word). It would be hard to justify calling those that perpetrated the Munich massacre anything other than terrorists. –CWenger (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be equally hard to call the Mossad agents less than that as well. This article is about the movie which makes the Mossad agents morally equal with the Palestinian group and hence, again, one should describe the Mossad agents in that movie by a similar adjective like terrorists or murderers. Otherwise this article would be biased towards whoever wrote/edit it.

Your reference does not say that what you claim. It the nutshell this is what they want to say :

"Spielberg's presentation of Israelis and Palestinians as two equally victimized peoples “trapped in a cycle of violence” gives rise to a version of reality in which there are no villains and, “above all, no evil.”

Note that, again he did NOT describe any party by anything he said "Israelis and Palestinians". So your reference stands, just as the movie, at a neutral perspective.

So I am going to remove that word again.

I am not going to change it in everyplace it occurs because in those places people are talking about the very same idea that are discussing here. However I made the change in places where I think it is merely the the writer's opinion.

There is a significant difference between your quote from the source, "Spielberg's presentation of Israelis and Palestinians as two equally victimized peoples 'trapped in a cycle of violence' gives rise to a version of reality in which there are no villains and, 'above all, no evil.'", and the phrase we are dealing with. The former is talking about entire nations of people (Israelis and Palestinians), while the latter refers only to the characters in the film. Your removal of the word "terrorist" leaves it as "Palestinian agents", which implies they were operating at the behest of some government authority, which I don't think you intended. You can replace it with "Palestinian militants" if that makes you feel better. But I would object to any negative change to the term "Mossad agents". That is just a simple statement of fact. If you want to put a negative label on them, you'd have to do likewise for anybody who killed somebody in a war, executioners, etc. –CWenger (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I did not mention you personally in my discussion. I was merely discussing the article and your reference. It is not about myself feeling better, it is just about being objective/neutral in the main article. I mentioned before that removing the negative descriptions for both sides would be a good solution. This is one thing, the other thing is that I did not say that the Palestinians side is moral and the Israeli side is not. I said that from the movie point of view both, Palestinians militants and Mossad agents, are morally the same and hence the article should reflect what the filmmaker tried to show. Other articles which deal with specifications on the very complicated Palestinian/Israel issue discuss what you mentioned in more details and does not just describe either side by just black/white adjectives and end the story.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion you made. I already have changed the sentence to "Palestinian militants.
I have no idea where I suggested anything about you mentioning me personally. That was certainly not my intent. As for the article, I am fine with the latest change even though 95% of sources would use the terms "Palestinian terrorists" and "Mossad agents" to describe the parties involved. –CWenger (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70.177.57.104 - Please start signing your messages, it gets very confusing to read.
Or stop removing the signatures automatically added by SineBot... –CWenger (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "terrorist" should be used for several reasons. First, massacring several unarmed athletes is an action very fitting of the word. That same group later massacred unarmed civilians in an Athenian Airport in tit-for-tat actions. If that is not a terrorist, then what is. "Mossad agents" described in the film were very specific on who they were going after, the people who carried out and organized the attacks. Gandhi was a "militant", a strong believer of what he was doing and willing to carry out that objective. I doubt people would call him a "terrorist" as he refused to carry out his objectives violently. If you want to talk about "Israeli terrorism", that is a different subject. Dinkytown (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you keep ignoring the fact that this movie is not about making those people guilty and the other party innocents. This movie is not judging what happened from a single point of view, it is about making them morally equivalent because they both killed people.

On the other hand, If you want to go into the details. I am sure you know that the Mossad agents killed innocent people (outside the land of Israel/Palestine) during their retaliation and that should be reflected in their description. The word "murderers" is a good word for this situation unless you think killing innocent people is ok. and if that is not a murder then what is. Back to your example where Gandhi did not use violence at all, in this case both sides used violence and killed a lot of people and hence your analogy does not suit the situation. and by the way I do not think that Gandhi was a militant. He was a philosopher and a thinker.

[@ Dinkytown] You used what power you have to force the change you want because you want that and not because it is a fact(again and again this article is about the neutral movie and not about what you personally think). This is simply violates the first principle of writing in Wikipedia. I made a change to that word after I discussed and explained in details my point of you. Usually how people talk here is the following: one presents his point of view and the other argue with/against it till they get to a solution. It seems that it this case I presented mine and, for some reason you did not like it, and decided that to report my change as disruptive. Why not make your change disruptive? You made that change first and more importantly you made it without going back to the discussion page. The change that I made is not a disruptive to the article and you just used what you have in power because you could not defend your point of view.
Back to the article If you want to make this change you should start a new article called about the massacre and there you can name those people what you want. Same logic you used in your last argument, with the difference that it did not fit what you were talking about, applies excatly what what I want to show. If you have another opinion lets talk about it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want see this meanwhile and especially the diagram which shows that you abused your authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to file a complaint, then please do so. Your violations will still stand for the record [3].
Regarding the Terrorist v. Militant issue, Steven Speilberg did use the word "terrorist" in describing - the terrorists. Check out the Plot Synopsis from the official Munich website [4]. Here are some quotes:
"Munich is an examination of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 Munich Olympics. ...summoned by his country's famed secret service agency, the Mossad, to carry out violent retaliations against those Palestinian terrorists allegedly behind the Munich massacre.
Compare even Wiki's definition between Terrorist and Militant:
- Terrorist - is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion... ... the use of violence against noncombatants... {and} ...the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.
- Militant - In general usage, a militant person is a confrontational person, regardless of the use of physical violence or pacifistic methods. A militant can, but not necessarily, engage in violence as part of a claimed struggle against oppression
Your definition of the term Palestinian "militants" (committed, but not violent) is contrary to what Spielberg visioned, and to history. They were terrorist. Your wordage just waters down their actions, insults the movie - and the victims. The term "terrorist" should stand. Dinkytown (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are insulting the movie because you do not want to understand that killing is killing no matter who did it. Very basically, You just want to show that the Palestinian did wrong and the Israel did good. That was not the point of the movie. The movie showed them killing (and it did not show every murder they did) and that what the filmmaker wanted to show. You want to call this whatever you like. It is still a murder and it is a terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source

[edit]

So as long as you do not provide a legitimate reference that the movie maker says explicitly that "the Palestinians were terrorists" then you are violating the NPOV. This reference should be

1- About this same movie : Munich 2- Should reflect the point of view of filmmaker

I am sure that you got the point of view of the movie maker which is neutral. Your point of view of the movie is different from what the movie is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder : "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Jaboha (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg describes them as "Black September terrorists" at 0:48 here. Are there any reputable sources that call them anything other than terrorists? –CWenger (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spielberg also mentions the word "terrorist" twice on the official movie website here. Dinkytown (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing my comments from the talk?!, You said you need a reference and I gave you one.Jaboha (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know sermonizing is not allowed here in the talk because this is not a forum so please stop doing that. This is one thing the other thing you seem to be taking this really personally by deleting the references that I am providing.
http://hnn.us/articles/21321.html
Here is a neutral reference that does not describe those people by anything and it DOES mention that the Mossad agents had no doubts and guilts like in the movie. Jaboha (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing about the term the Mossad agents. They killed innocents people in that retaliation mission (this is well-documented) and hence there should be something that describe their actions like the murderers agents for example.
Give us the link and proof that someone is deleting your messages and references.Dinkytown (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Killing innocent people accidentally makes you a murderer? That is an interesting interpretation. –CWenger (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it is an incident? you? and even if it was an incident would that make it fine? how would you feel if your mam was killed in an incident like that incident? It is clear that we are talking on two very different scales here. It is obvious that you feel ok if some people that are not from your ethnicity get killing and that violates Wikipedia neural nature. I made my point clearly and are being sarcastic instead of being subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaboha (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have really everytime to repeat that killing (no matter who did it and why)is wrong. I think that you got my point and that was the whole point of the movie.Jaboha (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to get philosophical, but society judges some killing to be justified and other to be morally wrong. This is reflected in reliable sources and should be reflected in Wikipedia. You will note that the articles on the pilots who dropped nuclear bombs on Japan (Paul Tibbets and Charles Sweeney) do not call them killers or murderers. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, it is just fact.
But the important point here is that people who kill innocent athletes and people who kill those they believe to be responsible for the attacks cannot possibly be called morally equivalent. Therefore Wikipedia should not refer to them in equivalent terms, just like they rarely are in secondary sources. –CWenger (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What society are you talking about? are you called society or something? You are saying what Wikipedia should look like because you think it should be like that. Naming what you think a fact is something can be argued forever.

Now Mathematicians, like philosophers, can form a definition and build a "whole real and true" theory over this definition. Now this definition might not match the "everyday mathematics" but everything following after that definition is a fact if you assume that definition to be correct. Some mathematicians and philosophers do that by the way and but their contributions to their fields is worthless and of no importance. The analogy between what those mathematicians/ philosophers do and your philosophy(definition) "it is ok to kill some people and name it incident and it is not to kill others and name that terror" is what I want to say here. This is about philosophy. But again you dodged the question how would you feel if your mam was killed in an incident like that incident?

My answer is I would be furious, but whether or not I would call those responsible "murderers" or "killers" would depend greatly on the circumstances, just like the situation we are dealing with. –CWenger (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I do not think that the more than 100000 people killed, their families and all those people who got hurt by nuclear aftermath after that disaster caused by the nuclear bomb agree with you on what you said. I am sure if you were a Japanese you would not agree as well. Obviously you are not a Japanese.Jaboha (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making my point. Of course all nuclear bombings are a tragedy, but that doesn't necessarily make those responsible "killers"/"murdererers"/"terrorists"/etc. –CWenger (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion is off topic. The subject is whether there should be wordage of "terrorist" v. "militant" in the article. This is not the venue for a moral discussion. I believe there has been consensus and the discussion should be closed. Dinkytown (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only a "tragedy" I do not think the right word to name such a massacre and I do not think that those individuals responsible for this should be called something other than murders/killers. We indeed went off topic. Jaboha (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch assassin real?

[edit]

Was the dutch assassin real or was she just invented for this movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 Hours At Munich

[edit]

Seeking clarification on this line: "Unlike an earlier film, 21 Hours at Munich, Spielberg's film depicts the shooting of all the Israeli athletes, which according to the autopsies was accurate."

It's written in a vague way that might suggest:

1. It's universally accepted that all hostages were killed by gunfire only. The Wikipedia article on the real-life events are a bit vague themselves, but seem to note that the exact cause of death for some hostages is unclear--they may have survived the gunfire and died instead during the hand grenade detonation or ensuing fire.

2. 21 Hours at Munich depicted some Israeli athletes as surviving or escaping, which is untrue. 21 Hours at Munich shows hostages in helicopter suffering the hand grenade, and the others being raked by gunfire. While it doesn't show the first set of hostages also being shot before blown up, it doesn't necessarily show anything inaccurate taking place.

I haven't seen Munich, and don't know if it skips the hand grenade entirely in favor of hostages only being shot. Either way, this line should probably be written with a little more clarity in terms of how the scene compares in both films, and have sources supporting its autopsy claims.

207.237.144.220 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least two Israelis could escape, Spielbergs depiction of the events is true and correct. 2001:871:240:19A:5C73:8D59:747F:6D6C (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies: Lillehammer and the title montage

[edit]

In the Controversies section, the article states that Lillehammer is one of a montage of cities (in the opening title sequence). In fact, the cities are all Olympic Games venues (Lillehammer staged the Winter Olympics). 86.4.253.180 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical authenticity section, direct involvement in Munich

[edit]

"The targets were not all directly involved in Munich, which Spielberg only acknowledges in the last 5 minutes."

Can we rephrase that? I'm not sure how though. It makes it sound like it was an error of the film to not point that out earlier, like Spielberg was concealing it from the audience, or that it was a mistake about the facts (an implication carried by including it in the Historical authenticity section) when actually that was kind of an important fact in the movie, it was kind of a big reveal to the protagonist at the end. Saying "Spielberg only acknowledges this in the last 5 minutes" makes it sound like it was just tossed in near the end there where the audience wouldn't notice it, when it was actually more like a significant reveal, almost a twist. This should be re-phrased and possibly removed from that section. --VolatileChemical (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Cast

[edit]

Oughtn't Wael Zwaiter, the man who was assassinated in Rome and portrayed by actor Makram Khoury, be included there? After all, he is mentionend twice in the article.

--93.196.146.105 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source of information of targets

[edit]

It is at best misleading that information comes from Louis when it comes at a price since they have to pay for it.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Munich_(2005_film)&oldid=1252605706"