Talk:Andreas Baader

message: I've added the section on the loss of Baader's brain. If this could be fleshed out with further research I would appreciate it greatly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.196.182 (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal and loss of brain 

message: I have removed categories relating to people who have committed suicide as his cause of death is still highly contested. Somearemoreequal 10:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "highly contested"? The "execution" theory is a myth, maintained by a few who rather believe in martyrs than acknowleding the failure of their heros.-- Matthead discuß!     O       18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be "highy contested" by a few, but mentioning this once is enough. Your edits, like stating that Möller "has no recollection of the night after going to bed" and deleting two categories and calling this added cause of death disputed category are not acceptable. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.rote-hilfe.de/static/publikationen/die-rote-hilfe-zeitung/1997/4/interview-mit-irmgard-moeller.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.219.11 (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide 

message: I'm not a leftist ;-) and what the RAF did seems hardly appalling to me, but this article is not neutral IMHO. One example is the Sartre citation (not backed by anything because the link leads to an IMDB movie link, however links exist for that but unfortunately there are no primary sources): philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre visited Baader in Stammheim Prison where he was being held. He later described Baader as "incredibly stupid" and "an asshole". The link here is an article by Sartre about his visit: La mort lente d'Andreas Baader The Slow Death of Andreas Baader. He allegedly said "Quel con !! "(What an asshole !!") after his visit , but he also wrote: (...)This absence of communication with others through sound creates profound problems — circulatory problems of the body, and problems of consciousness. These latter destroy thought by rendering it increasingly difficult. Little by little, it provokes blackouts, then delirium, and, obviously, madness. So even if there is no “torturer,” there are people who squeeze certain levers on another level. This torture provokes deficits in the prisoner; it leads him to stupefaction or to death. Baader, who is a victim of this torture, speaks quite appropriately, but from time to time he stops, as if he has lost his train of thought. He takes his head in his hands in the middle of a sentence and then starts up again two minutes later.. I'm not saying that we should remove the first citation, but it would be preferable to write that philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre visited Baader in Stammheim Prison where he was being held. He allegedly described Baader after the meeting as being "an asshole" ("Quel con !"). Even if he did not like Baader's behavior, he criticized the harsh conditions of imprisonment he thought Baader had to endure. (or something like that)
Hervegirod (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that now only the RAF Involvement section is still disputed. I will tweak the text as I propose to make it neutral too. Hervegirod (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that there's an NPOV problem.  Someone seems to have interjected their personal distaste for Baader into the article.  I removed two unsourced NPOV items.  One which claimed that Baader was "too scatterbrained" and Mienhoff "too weak willed" to be leaders of the RAF and another which described them as "only interested in blowing things up" during their time with Fatah and accused Meinhoff of having "a complete lack of common sense."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.26.101 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I see that a user recently deleted this article's first-paragraph description of the RAF as a "terrorist" organization.  Any rationale?  Surely that, at least, is not in dispute?  Nandt1 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's WP:TERRORIST. Lars T. (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist organization, no?

message: I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I don't really care how he died as long as he's dead, but the "Death" section basically presents info that indicates that he must surely have been murdered, then "balances" this with
:In the revised version of his comprehensive book on the RAF, which incorporates much new evidence and was published in English in 2009, Stefan Aust is categorical that the group members committed suicide.
So is Aust just being stubborn? It's implied. Surely he must have some reason to believe that Baader killed himself. What is it? Can we have a line or two summarizing his reasons, from someone familiar with the book or the case? Herostratus (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Hi editors. I just stumbled across this article reading about the fall of the berlin wall, which led to a stanza added to their national anthem on unity. In the very bottom it mentioned a DJ who notably mixes the anthem at live gigs in memory of this Andreas Baader guy.
I couldn't help but notice the following and come to a conclusion that for some reason isn't mentioned.
:Baader was supposed to have shot himself in the base of the neck so that the bullet exited through his forehead; repeated tests indicated that it was virtually impossible for a person to hold and fire a gun in such a way. In addition, three bullet holes were found in his cell: one lodged in the wall, one in the mattress, and the fatal bullet itself lodged in the floor, suggesting that Baader had fired twice before killing himself. Finally, Baader had powder burns on his right hand, but he was left-handed. Raspe, however, showed no signs of powder burns.
Doesn't this indicate that Raspe was shot by someone other than himself, and the burns on Baader's right hand suggest that the second (possibly first) unaccounted for bullet was a shot made post mortum with the gun forced into Baader's right hand erroneously by an unknown third party?
I mean, I don't want to sound tin foil hat or anything, but the way that passage reads the obvious conclusion is they were both shot by a third party (especially given the location of the shot at the base of the skull aiming up to the forehead, try to pretend you're holding a gun there, I dare you! :P) and covered it up as a murder-suicide?
I'm not sure why this isn't included in the article, but on revision of the discussion page I noted one editor chastising another editor about 'murder conspiracies' and such. Whilst I have had no further education on who Andreas Baader is I have no agenda to push in saying this, but as an avid reader of wikipedia I found it to be a glaring hole and notable element that ought be covered by those who are more akin to editing here. 114.76.167.183 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: it was suicide; there's a lot of conspiracy theory about it, but that's all BS19:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide or Murder? 

message: Anyone want to verify Baader's criminal record?198.239.178.119 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Record 

message: Why is this applied to Baader c.s.? They obviously did not die in custody; the First Generation was convicted by the court as of 1975.AlterBerg (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Custody" Category 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andreas Baader. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116143847/http://www.contre-informations.fr/doc-inter/allemagne/allemagne1.html to http://www.contre-informations.fr/doc-inter/allemagne/allemagne1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Quel con!" means "What a twat!", doesn't it? And not simply "Twat", right? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Twat!" or "What a twat!"