Talk:German Autumn

message: Is German Autumn really a used term in Britain or the states for the Deutsche Herbst? Or is it a translation from a german? --mirer 19:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Google for "german autumn" finds 9100 hits, including a book on the subject and a BBC newsstory (which uses both "autumn of terror" and "german autumn" - both in quotation marks). I suspect the events are nit significant enough for the english speaking world to warrant a proper word other than the translation 195.128.251.243 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 2004-2006 

message: I suspect the events are nit significant enough for the english speaking world to warrant a proper word other than the translation
Why use anything BUT the translation when the term is so clearly defined? Did we Germans invent anything fancy for -- say -- the Wars of the Roses instead of calling it just Rosenkriege? No, we didn't. Would there be a necessity to call it anything else? Geranienkriege or what? So why the discontent with German Autumn?
And anybody who finds the events of the German Autumn "not significant", now, exactly 30 years later and in the chilling light of global Islamist terror, needs his head examined some private lessons in history.
Verity Truth 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about this not being significant enough? As for the bio article it seems fine to me. If you think it violates WP:UNDUE you might want to discuss that on the appropriate talk page. EconomicsGuy 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Autumn 

message: :Image:Hanns Martin Schleyer in captivity.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 ensure 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) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hanns Martin Schleyer in captivity.jpg

message: we all know that the deaths of the raf members were questionable but they were not officially murdered the article should reflect this instead of outright claiming they were murderd in there cells 78.148.169.55 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: no we DO NOT know that they were murdered - you (and many leftists) want to know that they were murdered - the rest of the world knows that they are dead and that they probably (but not 100% sure) comited suicide  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.218.55 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF murderd  

message: This is a highly biased section, IMO, and largely incorrect. If it is based on the two references given ("Nach der Katastrophe" und "Fire and Flames") then the same goes for those. Toughening of police and judicial rules in order to deal with the perceived threat from terrorism had begun long before these events; using the phrase "police state" in conjunction with those even in the present form ("a little way") is wide of the mark. Furthermore, the "Großer Krisenstab" was not a "government" at all, it was a regular meeting of high-level officials for dealing with the crisis at hand. It did not preempt or usurp the government in any way, nor did it deal with unrelated matters. To sum it up: much would have to be changed about this section to bring it in line with the standards of this medium (and with reality); I think it would best be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udittmer (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy response section 

message: The infobox suggests, that Hanns Martin Schleyer and Siegfried Buback were fighting the RAF. They were both kidnapped and murdered, but the sole "leader" would be the leader of the German government, which was the just deceased Helmut Schmidt. One might argue they were representing what the RAF was fighting, but they were not the leaders. --Aeroid (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders