Talk:Red Army Faction/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Introduction

"On 20 April 1998, an eight-page typewritten letter in German was faxed to the Reuters news agency, signed "RAF" with the machine-gun red star, declaring that the group had dissolved."

I stumbled across this during my first glance at the entry: Aren't faxes black&white, especially in 1998? So how could the fax have been signed with the machine gun red star? There also is no mention of said star in the given source.

--A koehncke (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Legislation

I have been looking for a citation that the German government called the RAF a terrorist organisation, This has thrown up a couple of reliable sources that could be used to write a section on how the activities of the group caused the German government to enact new laws to dealt with the threat that they posed.

  • David Charters, The deadly sin of terrorism: its effect on democracy and civil liberty in six countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994, ISBN 0313289646, 9780313289644 "Response" p. 52
  • James J. F. Forest, Countering terrorism and insurgency in the 21st century: international perspectives, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007 ISBN 0275990370, 9780275990374. Section "Legislative Changes" p. 285

--PBS (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

clumsy-ambiguous phrase

"left-wing politics which uncritically adopted Marxist positions which rejected western democracy and the still developing notions of human rights."

At first reading, seems to say that "Marxist positions...rejected...notions of human rights," which makes little sense. A more careful reading suggests that a better phrasing might be "left wing politics embracing still-developing notions of human rights while uncritically adopting Marxist positions which rejected western democracy." However, I'm reluctant to make this correction, as I am unsure that the RAF was entirely uncritical of Marxism. Is the POV of this statement neutral? Is it original research?

As I feel unqualified to answer these questions, I ask someone better-versed in the topic to clear the ambiguity, which I leave intact. Bustter (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanctuary over the border

Did they not cross the Berlin Wall itself? I know that sentence did read like the Wall was the be and end all of the GDR border - a curiously widespread misperception, however perhaps the article needs to be specific or even point this out. The Tom Vague book recounts them crossing the wall if i remember correctly. --maxrspct ping me 10:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossing Jordan

Die Mauerspringer? (a Peter Schneider novel). Members from all the armed "revolutionary" bands used Bahnhof Friedrichrichstrasse from time to time, nobody tried to climb the wall from the West to the East as far as I know. And, user: Max is completely right for once: most of the Eastgermans did not care that much about the wall, they lived a long way from it. Some even did not mind to live in a big KZ.--Radh (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Try not to be rude and please pay attention to your edits. --maxrspct ping me 09:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And now lets play master and servant? Please do not attack Wikipedians with ideas like "30% of Germans supported the raf in the 1970s" and I will completely ignore you.--Radh (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not playing games mate. Try to mollify your tone. About 7 or 8 paragraphs from the bottom -"RAF had the sympathy of one of every four Germans under 30, according to a 1971 survey" [1] Not a usuable source of course but perhaps indicates that i'm not fibbing. --maxrspct ping me 11:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of your June, 25th statement with your raf page revert or edit, there you wrote simply: 30% percent of population pro-raf, which is simply not true for the population as a whole at any time. Of course, the edit summary is not the space to be specific, I can see that.
  • I do absolutely believe your number for youth support in 1971 - well before the ugly killings. Even later, when I was 16 or 17 Christian Klar was a big hero of my best friend at Gymnasium/High school, we even sprayed some nonsense about our director on the walls of the school and signed it with RAF, but this support was completely emotional, did not signify anything political at all. There was a strong support scene for the RAF and the other armed groups, esp. in Berlin or Frankfurt. And there was very strong sympathy from the intelligentia for a very long time, Erich Fried wrote a poem celebrating (a bit) the Buback' s assasination. The few literary textes given on the raf page as indicators for this support could easily be doubled. The anarchist, printer and writer (and armed fighter), guilty as hell Peter Paul Zahl from Agit 883 was made into an innocent hero/victim in a way normally reserved here for black revolutionary killers from the States like Angela Davis or Abu Jamal.
  • You are very passionate about this whole thing and why not. But I claim a similar right to be sick and tired with raf sympathizers. But if I get statements wrong feel free to kick me, I do not mind that very much.--Radh (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well ok, but again, i'm not here as an RAF sympathizer (which i wouldn't describe myself as anyway) but as a wikipedia editor. I would rather this was about the article and not personal e.g categorizing me/flinging insults or about what you got up to at school. :) --maxrspct ping me 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A book I am reading on Schleyer says: Support for the RAF from the larger left wing community has never been greater than after the death of Holger Meins, but the sympathy the Raf got from this non-militant left ("Scheißliberale") collapsed after the Ponto killing and Schleyer execution.
And as the story of Meinhof' s arrest in Hannover shows - she was handed over to the police by a leftist teacher and his wife, after the teacher had asked Oskar Negt what to do - even some people from the APO left did not like the idea of urban guerilla warfare in their own backyard early on.
The well known SDS militant, Angela Davis supporter, Marxist writer and academic Oskar Negt and his friend, a big number in Germany's strongly leftwing teacher's union (GEW) rather played the Noske to the new Leninists than to support their former friend and idol.
I do not know, if there are realistic numbers available measuring support for armed struggle in Germany.
But the hard core is easily counted: The Raf had 300 members all in all (the Italian Red Brigades about a 1.000).
I do not dispute the 30% sympathy number among the young generation (in 1971), but am absolutely sure that even then the older generation, people who had been pro-Hitler in the late 30s in their vast majority will not have had any kind regards for the Raf at all.--Radh (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

About the Allenbach institute's poll at 1971 http://www.baader-meinhof.com/tag/allensbach-institute/ (I am not german but I read that Allensbach was considered as CDU-friendly !!!). Also in J. Smith's and A. Moncourt's book (Volume 1) it is mentioned that 40% of responders described the RAF's violence as political, not criminal in motive. 20% indicated that they could understand efforts to protect fugitives from capture, and 6% confessed that they were themselves willing to conceal a fugitive. Stelarov (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Bommi Baumann

Michael Baumann, member of the blues and the Zentralrat der Umherrschweifenden Haschrebellen (and sometime informant for the stasi), friend of Georg von Rauch and later with the 2nd of June people did not like the raf, at least not in his first book. He has another one out which I have not read.--Radh (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Important:

The correct English translation of the group is Red Army Fraction, not 'faction'. 'Fraction' is a specialized term in this context that refers to a unit of communist party discipline. Faction is not the correct word. I am not sure how to edit the title of the entry, etc, but someone needs to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

U wot? faction is the right word. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

R A Faction is correct and is the common translation and has to stand, but Fraktion is a German word, not *Faktionen. There are one, two google hits for Red Army Fraction, but nearly all are for "faction", in English it also is "(Japanese) Red Army Faction". --Radh (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the literal translation would make more sense as "Fraction", but can tell you that I've been reading it translated as "Faction" for decades. Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
See Political faction and wikt:fraction — as far as Wikipedia goes, no it doesn't, and I can't find hits on Google either (only the act of splitting apart not for the parts). Lars T. (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Landshut hijacking

I must dispute the 1977 Landshut hijacking under the section of assualts attributed to the RAF. I have been studying this for quite some time. All of the hijackers were Palestinian/Arab/Lebanese. The Wikipedia page on this topic does not list any members of the RAF as being participants in this operation. There were only four hijackers. While the RAF sympathized with the hijackers, and while the hijackers demanded the release of some RAF members from prison, the operation was not their doing. --66.30.240.233 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong reference to the film "Munich"

If I remember correctly, in the film the Mossad commando disguises under the name of the ETA, not of the RAF, with the PLO counterpart. - Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.173.141 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Fahndungsplakat - RAF.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fahndungsplakat - RAF.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming this page based on organization's own spelling in English

If you ask former members of the group, they agree they called themselves the "Red Army Fraction," using the Leninist usage of "fraction" to indicate their adherence to the principle of "Democratic Centralism" which opposes factions as a splinter rather than a "fraction" which is a part of the whole group. If editors here want to use the wrong term simply because English language newspapers translated the name wrong from the beginning, that's simply wrong. The correct name for all Leninist sub-groups is "Fraction" not "Faction." Anyone who has ever studied the organization of political communism as a movement can verify this. See, for example, here: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/206.html Chip.berlet (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) is that articles are named according to common usage, usually the name that dominates in sources. This sometimes conflicts with the "pedantically" correct name, but it's not our job to correct history's mistakes. The information on the correct name and the errors that brought the incorrect one into broad use could be included in the article though, as long as a source can be found that discusses this. Equazcion (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the policy in general, but in this case I think it should not apply. It is a mis-translation of the name, not a situation where the term "Common Buttercup" is more common than the term "Ranunculus acris L." But I will wait to see if there is more discussion. Meanwhile I will try to add the information as you suggestChip.berlet (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Equazcion. We should follow the sources. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I too agree with Equazcion. Hohenloh + 00:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with User:Equazcion. German Fraktion is faction in English with exactly the same connotations, notwithstanding the RAF's ideology or intention for their name. Cheers, Mabuse (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tip

Why not investigate RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) to USA relations now that USA has been found dubious by Military complex, i.e., Hindenburg-New York-USA, Bay of Pigs, Echelon, sinking of SS Kursk by USS Miami??? What say you? Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Defense strategy on trial

I have only written about the period I thought it was important. Anyone who want to expand it, can add information before/after these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelarov (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Trial Manipulation and False witnesses

The section is somehow poorly written, I will add things and inspect the text more carefully in the following days. Stelarov (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

and the title is clearly biased as well15:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.44 (talk)

Neutrality/Clumsy Translation

I just made a few edits, removing references to the gang's "show trial" and "trial-parody" which seem to have been made by supporters of the Baader-Meinhof cause. They also seem to have been written in another language (I suspect German) originally, as the syntax is oddly mismatched and synthetic, like the English that comes out of Google Translate. The guardians of this page should be on the lookout for mischievous edits like these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James XV (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

2 June 1967

I'm confused by the following: "There were protesters but also hundreds of supporters of the Shah, as well as a group of fake supporters armed with wooden staves, there to disturb the normal course of the visit. These extremists beat the protesters." So, were the extremists the fake supporters armed with staves? Because if they beat the protesters, then i should think that they were there not so much to "disturb the normal course of the visit", but rather to disturb the protests. Help? --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jerome Charles Potts:: Better a late reply than none. That sentence is extremely badly phrased. What is meant by fake supporters is, that they were not actually genuine supporters from civil life, but agents of the Persian secret service SAVAK who were hired to stage support and who then turned on the protesters without interference by the police. They therefore were later dubbed Jubelperser (cheering Persians, the German wiki article) or Prügelperser (flogging Persians). I will rewrite it once I get to working my way through the article (it's on my to-do list). Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

List of assaults

The assassination of de:Gerold von Braunmühl is missing. --92.225.87.0 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I added it to the table. It would be good if someone translated the article about him to the English Wikipedia. --Pudeo' 23:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

'Gang' vs. 'group'

An addendum for the Name section: It could be tough to find an English-language source for this, but it was a very charged issue and even frequently considered a political statement in West-Germany throughout the 1970s and partly even the 1980s whether you called them gang or group (due to one carrying a more positive and the other a more negative connotation, naturally). This political cartoon[2] on the Dreyfus affair (top panel caption reads in French, "Let us not mention the affair...", bottom panel caption reads, "...now they have mentioned it!") pretty much sums up what happened when you used either of the terms to signify the RAF at the time and you had at least one person in the room who differed with your choice of expression.

Also, as the German article mentions with a source, there were (and still are) two less-charged, concurrent pronunciations of the abbreviation RAF in Germany. One is by simply spelling out the letters one by one, and the other was to pronounce them as the word Raff, which made it sound like a soundword related to the verb raffen ("to grub" or "grab"). My personal OR would be that the latter was in remote association to their series of bank-robberies and the contemporary Leftist saying of Expropriiert die Expropriateure! ("Expropriate the expropriators!", or, "Loot the looters!", probably at the time pretty much identical idiomatically to the English "whole f*ckin' bakery" quote) --80.187.110.67 (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all interesting stuff. Surely it's been considered by the media, pundits, academics? (Re: inserting the info into the article.) Cheers Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Having read a lot on the topic, I would think that you might be overthinking the terminology a little bit. But I will check all that out once I start working through the article. There is certainly something to the gang-term, which was usually used by the Tabloid media (Bild), while more neutral publications might have spoken of the Baader-Meinhof-Gruppe (though Der Spiegel usually just wrote BM). Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Worth considering perhaps- I've got a thing somewhere on the political-weighting of language- might have relevance in that regard? On edit Also, what about the use of Fraction rather than faction?Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been debated multiple times. To me, it is absolutely clear, that the German Fraktion translates to faction in political English. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is not so clear to the rest of the English-speaking world. LOLZ. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary can help: see faction: Revision as of 14:30, 16 April 2009 and in wikt:de:Fraktion: "Politik: ein freiwilliger Zusammenschluss von Abgeordneten zur Durchsetzung ihrer politischen Interessen und Ziele in einem Parlament". --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Getting back to gang vs. group: It wasn't just Springer's tabloids. There's this one 1996 CD audio play/musique concrete album Deutsche Krieger - Tonträgeroper in 3 Akten by F.M. Einheit (co-produced by Bayrischer Rundfunk and Deutsches Rundfunkarchiv) that mainly consists of authentic historical recordings. Part ("Akt") 3 is Ulrike Meinhof Paradise (Parts 1 and 2 are called Kaiser Wilhelm Overdrive and Adolf Hitler Enterprise, respectively), and it also includes authentic 1970s Tagesschau broadcasts where they're called Bande. --80.187.106.216 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

real backgrounds of so-called suicides

There were no suicides in Stammheim. RAF-members were killed by paramilitary GSG9 according to a general plan developped by a powerful Bilderberg-related individual behind the sceneries of German politics.

This individual also accompanied Baader to a secret fake exchange to Mogadishu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.239.83 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red Army Faction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist vs militant

See also Archive 2: Legislation

German Wikipedia[3] calls RAF a "terrorist" group, which is consistent with naming in the literature and media[4] as the group was commiting acts of terror. This has been just changed in this article[5] as the editor considered the naming "NPOV". Kravietz (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

According to contemporaneous German sources as well as modern sources in German and other languages, calling the RAF "terrorist" is unambiguously correct and not a matter of POV. That edit should be reverted ASAP. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Reverted it. This is a no-brainer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
German Wikipedia is not WP:RS and sources are irrelevant anyway because "terrorist" is a always POV. Terrorist according to who? Was the Underground Railroad in the U.S. a terrorist organization because Southern state governments considered it such? Describe the actions themselves, leave POV pejoratives out of it. The careful edits I've made take nothing from the article's content and obscure no facts, they merely avoid this propagandistic term, and also removes one (at best) irrelevant source (about how all Germans are naturally terroristic). The page still leads with their classification as a terrorist group according to the West German government, and notes that several members were convicted by the German gov't of forming a terrorist organization. — J D (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
By your logic, no organization is a terrorist group. Jesus Christ, I can hardly hold myself back here. Every scientific book on the topic calls them a terrorist group. You probably wanna tell me now that they are also POV? Probably because they belong to the oppressive system that needs to be fought? I reverted your edit because calling them terrorist is in the reliable sources and therefore most likely to gain a consensus. I will revert your edit again. Feel free to lobby for a consensus that says otherwise here, but until you achieve this, please stop messing with the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What sort of "scientific book" is relevant to the question? Are there "scientific books" on what "democracy" or other political terms mean? This isn't a scientific question at all. I've restored the parts of the edit which don't have to do with use of this pejorative. Raise a separate discussion if you want to revert those. As for the use of the pejorative "terrorist", I'll return to advocate for that when I have time. — J D (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently the article's lead says: "The Red Army Faction (...) was a West German far-left militant group. (...)The West German government considered the Red Army Faction to be a terrorist organization". Which part exactly here is WP:NPOV? Did not the German government consider them a terrorist organisation? Kravietz (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Kravietz I think what you quote is totally fine; no conflict or POV issues there. The lead describes what they were in neutral terms (a militant group), while the later part notes that the West German government considered them to be a "terrorist organization." The NPOV issues being discussed here (and which I changed in my edit) are three occasions later in the article which unequivocally characterize group members as "terrorists." This is a charged, pejorative term, lacking any agreed upon definition or extension, and infamously POV. As the WP article terrorism notes “The word ‘terrorism’ is politically loaded and emotionally charged” and the word ”terrorist" … carr[ies] strong negative connotations.” It's never NPOV (or necessary!) to describe a person or group as "terrorists." We can always describe the actions (e.g., bombing of military installations) rather than avert to the generic, uninformative "terrorist activities." For NPOV, the word is only properly used in quotational or relative contexts: Such-and-such ambassador denounced this "terrorist activity," or such-and-such group is classified by such-and-such other group as a terrorist organization, etc. — J D (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia's policy on contentious labels applies here, see: WP:LABEL.-Ich (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Once I get to work on the article (it's on my to-do list since it's very poor imo), I will see to it that I only use terrorist when speaking of government policies, e.g. in their creation of a law against terrorist organizations and so forth. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If you want a good example of this policy being applied, see Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is referred to as a "terrorist group" in sentences like "...has been designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council", with citations.-Ich (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Stammheim Death Night

The section about the death of the RAF members in Stammheim is way to unbalanced. It presents the controversial conspiracy theory that they were killd by the state as a matter of fact and discredites the "official" version. The section ony lists some controversial points while completly omitting material which counters the conspiracy theory, gathered in numerous reports and investigations. This conspiracy theory was/is mainly pushed by extreme left and communist circles (RAF supporters and their laywers) as well as the communist bloc (from which the RAF had received a lot of aid during their existence). It is not accepted by mainstream historiography. Non surprisingly the sources in this section are very questionable anyway, mostly web pages, online publishers, snippets from extreme left wing publications, as well as cherrypicking from primary sources. The section should be entirely rewritten with what actually happened and just mention the conspiracy theory and who supported it in a single paragraph at best. This case is much better handled on the German WP article. Dead Mary (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

that section still is pushing conspiracy theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.218.55 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Revival

This seems relevant and perhaps should be added to the Legacy part of the article, Antifa is reviving the name RAF (Rote Antifa Front) I've not seen evidence of a direct link other than ideology, among Antifa circles (forums and such) the Baader Meinhof group has an elevated status as an ideal to be upheld and strive for. People here are welcome to check Antifa forums for citations thought I'm not sure how it could be linked back to wikibedia (use a proxy ffs and don't use your real name like I did it will just make you a target) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.13.4 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Antifa forums are not a reliable source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Red Army Fraction

See Achieve 1 Fraktion or faction and the follow up section More on fraction and faction

From the edit history "Removed or Red Army Fraction from the lead as it is not commonly used in German -- this was extensively discussed in a page move request years ago".

So if it is to be restored to the lead as a bold name then under WP:BURDEN then provide here on this talk page evidence from English Language reliable sources that it is a common term in English (say 10% as common as "Red Army Faction"). -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote

Regarding this edit by User:Sideshow Bob: I don't think this article needs the hatnote, "This article is about the German militant group. For the United Kingdom's aerial warfare force, see Royal Air Force." This article's name is "Red Army Faction" and no REDIRECT exists that could lead a reader to think that this article is about the RAF (a REDIRECT to "Royal Air Force", nota bene). They may share the same initialism, but, as WP:NAMB points out, readers cannot possibly be in doubt about the subject of this article, nor can they reach this article expecting the Royal Air Force. Otherwise, every article on RAF (disambiguation) would need such a hatnote. I suggest to remove that hatnote again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got a point, go on and remove it then. Sideshow Bob 06:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Members

Some members get little attention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.33.84 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Army_Faction/Archive_2&oldid=1183026285"