[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Wikipedia

Talk:Members of the Red Army Faction

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

This Page Is In Serious Need of Work

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

And let's face it, that's an understatement. It contains almost no specific sources and much of it looks as if it could have been written by former RAF terrorists. Some of it is almost comical in that regard. Mosedschurte (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

and much of it looks as if it could have been written by former RAF terrorists. Some of it is almost comical in that regard.
Examples ??? What I see in the first place, in the case of Christoph Seidler, is that Federal Court :of Justice of Germany has denied all Accusations relating to his membership, and also has the Attorney :General of Germany ceized such accusations in the early 90´s.
So mentioning him here as a member of RAF, is not even comical, but cynical, and a defamation, or :false accusation by Wikipedia, that could couse a lawsuit,and severe negative consequences for a :person, so that I deleted that statement from the list. Source: http://www.tolmein.de/linke-geschichte,raf,185,vs-stern-auf-allen-wegen.html

That really makes the quality of research in such a sensible case really questionable.

-- Addition: Andrea Klump was not evidently a member of RAF. She was trialed in 2004 for taking part in an assault on russian emigrants in Budapest 1991, and was then sentenced in summary to 12 years for attempted murder and a 2001 verdict for an assault on a NATO base in Rota/Spain [0].
Compare german Wikipedia page, where it says:
"Eine Mitgliedschaft in der RAF konnte ihr jedoch nie nachgewiesen werden, auch liegen von behördlicher Seite keine diesbezüglichen Annahmen mehr vor.
Daher wurde auch der Vorwurf der Mitgliedschaft in einer terroristischen Vereinigung nach 129a StGB gemäß § 154a StPO gegen sie eingestellt.[1]"
" RAF Membership could never be proven, also no relating assumptions are remaining anymore from german authorities.
Therefore charges of Membership in a terrorist organisation according to § 129a StGB (german criminal law) had been scrapped according to § 154 StPO (german code of criminal procedure)" [1]"

[0] http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/a-320318.html
[1] http://www.tolmein.de/linke-geschichte,raf,181,raf-verfahren.html 89.196.41.168 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Make template

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would anyone be interested in making a template, for use on this and other articles, with one instance per person; something like {{Episode list}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

SPK

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Any claim trying to imply SPK was RAF is contentious, libelous and defamatory content denied by verifiable and reliable sources and legal procedures, and are dealing with living people, therefore these contents should not be added at all. Per WP:BLP, contents should remain conservative when dealing on contentious contents that are defamatory. I erased any of those editions as WP:BLP warns that those contentious contents must be erased immediately and aggresively due the respective harm and grievance against those people. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The claims are that several members of SPK joined RAF, and they are referenced. Now, please stop your nonsensical sockpuppetry at the Spanish language Wikipedia. We've had enough of it already. Sabbut (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Most of the 500 patients of the SPK did not joined RAF. Those who ever joined RAF even years after the self-dissolution of SPK had to break with SPK as it was strongly demanded by the RAF. RAF rejected and even attacked SPK. and SPK did never practiced something like: "therapy through violence" but certainly they were affected by persecution and violence coming from doctors and their helpers in the State. All that is documented. So those claims are defamatory, harmful and denied by several reliable sources and as dealing with living persons should be deleted, even if some sources claim opposite, the article should remain conservative per WP:BLP. Sabbut is responsabile of harrasment against the patients of SPK and he blocked any attempt to correct those defamations in the spanish wikipedia, he ignored even tons of sources and legal procedures exposing the falsehood of these claims, therefore his warnings should be ignored at all, he is just playing a very harmful game causing grievance to living people, his private childish interests are not an excuse. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
What is documented as per the tons of references I and others have given is that several members of the SPK became members of RAF, and that a major source of recruits from the second generation of the RAF consisted in members and former members of the SPK. On the other hand, when you accuse me of libel, I have to assume that you are making a legal threat as a spokesman (or some other cadre, whatever) on the SPK's behalf. If that is the case, there is a procedure you should follow instead of removing referenced statements.
On the other hand, if someone is to be blamed for childish behavior, that is no one but you. Admins are welcome to ask Tirithel, Laura Fiorucci or Magister Mathematicae (among others) for additional information on the subject. You and your colleagues have already damaged the Wikipedia project enough, be it through plain vandalism, trolling, self-promotion, sockpuppetry, threats or lies (or should I say... "libel"?). I sincerely believe enough is enough. Sabbut (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
If prosecutors and judges are already busy with legal procedures from PF/SPK(H) against defamations and libels like Sabbut's ones, that is not my concern but perhaps a Sabbut's concern. But how could be that understood by him who seems not even able to make a simple sum, evidence: assuming his own sources to be true, not even more than 2% of former SPK patients became RAF memebers, but for him that is enough to imply a connection within SPK-and-RAF and to publish an allegedely "several". What it is clear is that he is trying to imply a false accusation against SPK people in order to mislead readers, but I have not evidence to prove that he did not bet some coins for this or that there is not some money involved. But I have evidence that other users had provided him a lot of references (like [4][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and even DTV Brockhaus encyclopedia entrie about SPK[5]) that denies SPK being RAF, and showing that even some of those names published by Sabbut were never in the SPK, so the article should remain conservative per WP:BLP and do not claim those claims even if some sources claim it. But perhaps Sabbut is also unable to read and understand this, but it would be a very tedious boredom to show again the tons of evidence against Sabbut sense in this particular case (even deleted evidence [6]) and I have no evidence of his good sense in other cases, although any one interested could waste his/her time looking for it. Whatever, since years ago no one trust in wikipedia as a source about SPK, thanks to copiers like this little Sabbut. And those who trust in wikipedia as a source about SPK are lost people, thanks? to copiers like this Sabbut. Whatever Sabbut thinks to be enough or not, is also an issue falling into the mentioned boredom. Therefore, back to my first sentence here: I perhap should leave Sabbut with his very desired toy (fetichism?) and let this game just played by the mentioned judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and so on. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think from now on I will refrain from answering back to a single-purpose user who has consistently breached the most basic rules of civility, which is one of the five pillars of the Wikipedia project, by insulting and belittling me (only from his last message: "seems not even able to make a simple sum", "unable to read and understand this", "copiers like this little Sabbut", "desired toy", "fetishism?") as well as other users and by using the legal terms "libel" and "defamation", which have a specific meaning and a specific use, when describing referenced statements.
As for his reference, I understand that a book openly criticizing psychopathology and which only claims that the SPK was falsely linked to RAF should be given less weight than books on the history of terrorism which describe the extent of such links. As for the encyclopedia, one can only wonder if it was presented with undeniable evidence that the SPK and the RAF were unrelated or if, on the contrary, it only gave way to the SPK's legal threats. In any case, Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias may be used sparingly in order to give a general view of a subject, but not for specific details. Sabbut (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ PF/SPK(H), Text for entries on the SPK in the Encyclopedias of Brockhaus, Duden, etc.
  2. ^ Proposal for a text for international use concerning SPK. Overview.
  3. ^ SPK/PF(H), SOZIALISTISCHES PATIENTENKOLLEKTIV (SPK), PATIENTENFRONT (PF), List of dates
  4. ^ SPK Turn illness into a Weapon, 1993, ISBN 3-926491-17-5, 240 pp.
  5. ^ Trevor Blake, SPK - Krankheit Im Recht, ISBN: 3926491264.
  6. ^ Ian Parker, Deconstructing psychopathology, ISBN=9780803974814 p.120
  7. ^ Spandler, H.1992. To Make an army out of Illness: a history of the Socialist Patients Collective (SPK). Heidelberg 1970/71/Asylum 6(4)
  8. ^ Félix Guattari, Molecular revolution: psychiatry and politics, 1984, ISBN: 0140551603, p.67-68
  9. ^ Gary Genosko, Deleuze and Guattari: critical assessments of leading philosophers, p.480-481,798
  10. ^ [1]
  11. ^ Lutz Hachmeister, Schleyer, eine deutsche Geschichte. (Analysis on RAF comuniques and letters about SPK. RAF posssition against SPK) [2]
  12. ^ Der Spiegel. (RAF-SPK connection never proved). [3]
  13. ^ Greg Guma "Anything but the Truth: The Art of Managing Perceptions," Propaganda And The Global War On Terrorism(GWOT), Year 4 – 2005, The Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, UK (17 August 2005).

Section about Meinhof

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Few sentences written in such a way to completely demonize and misinform about Meinhof. A sentence from a whole statement altering its original meaning, and: "apparently killed herself" ??? << In 1978 the committee published its report, concluding that: "The formal claim that Ulrike Meinhof committed suicide by hanging is unfounded, given the fact that the investigation results reasonably converge to the conclusion that she could not hang herself. Most probably Ulrike Meinhof was already dead before she was hanged and there are warning signs indicating the involvement of a third party regarding her death."[16][17] Ulrike Meinhof's page in wikipedia ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelarov (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Edited. 147.27.58.40 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Members of the Red Army Faction. 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) 13:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Members_of_the_Red_Army_Faction&oldid=1252293011"