Talk:Red Army Faction

Third generation
This article does not mention the third generation and their "interesting" choice of victims. Among the people whose murder has been claimed to be their doing are Rohwedder and. Recently (2016) there also was a robbery of a money transport for which third generation members were blamed. Conspiracy theories of them never actually existing are also quite common in some corners... Make of that what you wish... Pizzameister (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just like you mentioned on my talk page, the crank book "Das RAF-Phantom" by Gerhard Wisnewski (who seems to be an experienced conspiracy theorist if you check out his other books). Here are some links if someone is interested in commencing any work in including it here, as it might take a little while before I'm going to do anything:
 * Short information from the author's website has a short summary and a table of contents in German
 * More information from the author's website but in grammatically incorrect English (it's mild and shouldn't be a problem to decipher imo)
 * The German Wikipedia article has the most information on the internet without paying money for the (very likely awful) book.
 * Customer reviews on Amazon Germany might also be useful for the lols
 * Couldn't find more relevant information for now as nobody seems to care about this book.
 * NameThatNobodyTakes (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Featured? Rating?
This page is rather well written and teeming with sources. Should it be featured? Pizzameister (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean that it should be awarded gold status from scratch, I can safely say: no. I think it is worthy of bronze however, although some of the links used for references might need some polishing (just having a link saying [1] or [2] or something looks rather ugly).--JorisEnter (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. Back then I inserted the references in an ugly manner because I was still inexperienced in editing Wiki articles. 21:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Membership" opening statement
The group consisted largely of former university students[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] still fresh from the student revolts in 1968 and in relatively many cases either came from middle-class families or had bourgeois upbringings.[3][4][6][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

This reads pretty blatantly like tu quoque - due to the unnecessarily high volume of sources for this one sentence (to the point that it is eye-catching), and of course given the subject of the overall article. Leading this particular section of this particular article with a statement like this gives the appearance of attempting to discredit its subject matter.

The usefulness of the information is also questionable. It can be interpreted as wholly unnecessary. In any group with communist/socialist leanings, to have made an impact worthy of note they would have had no choice but to operate within the confines of the system that they opposed, regardless of whether they were born into it - this is rather like noting and providing 33 sources for the fact that the volunteer at your local homeless shelter happens to not be starving, and is in possession of four walls and a roof.