Jump to content

Talk:Erich Mielke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrongful deletion of image

[edit]

Image:Mielkehonulb005 540px.jpg was wrongfully deleted from this page by User:Nv8200p. --Fahrenheit451 05:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

... My father was a poor, uneducated woodworker ... is a little CV modification Mielke made to get a better start in the KP. Sorry can not bring any scientific historical sources. I ve just read it in Sueddeutsche.de/Spiegel-Online.de articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.240.226 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category German murderers

[edit]

Why is this in German murderers? He's not exactly known for whatever he did during the Weimar Republic. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would not be enough to paint him simply as Communist. The editors wanted to paint him as black as possible, guilty of every possible crime in Stalinist history: murder of policemen in the Weimar era, murder of political opponents during the Soviet purge, oppresor of his people during East Germany existence, etc. Everything very well sourced, of course!Wintceas (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: Dynamosport

[edit]

The source I have used for a few small contributions, Erich Mielke - Freund und Genosse, is not what I usually would consider a reliable one but the fact that it is so pro-Mielke makes it quite useful in regards of him celebrating the murders. It's German wording of the murders is actually quite scarry as it portrais them as an heroic deed!EA210269 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is far too long...

[edit]

76.117.247.55 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} I don't like the translation of 'ein Ding, das ich gedreht habe.' It's just old-fashioned slang for a minor crime (a 'number', a 'hit', a 'trick', along those lines), nothing to do with 'spinning.'

So I'd change it to 'Today we're here to celebrate a trick I pulled.' Sartoresartus (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: We don't just change things because someone asks, but if you can provide a reliable source in translation, then of course we can make the change. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
: http://books.google.co.th/books?id=K8vfPe7x9PUC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=ein+ding+drehen+german-english&source=bl&ots=qrAiANXlix&sig=glbNNKe_58KmOeJ-CfTGnlhLtm4&hl=en&ei=4f0aTLraI4alcb3CwJYK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

ein Ding drehen ugs- 1. to get up to s. th. - 2. to land a coup, to pull s.th. off 3. to pull a job H. Schemann, P. Knight, German-English dictionary of idioms, 1995. The Langenscheidt will provide the same answer. Sartoresartus (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style of writing

[edit]

This way this article is written is not suitable to such an important topic or indeed any article on wikipedia. The first problem here is the very biased and non-encyclopedic language and phrasing used language used(such as goons, thugs,"specialized in cracking heads" among many others). The next and more deep-rooted one is that this article is written more like a story than an article. It contains a lot of dialogue and narrative, along with accounts of people's emotions and thoughts. Mo2 can do 18:45, 16 Febuary 2011 (UTC)

File:Mielke hon ulb.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Mielke hon ulb.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAF attacks

[edit]

Mielke was never formally indicted for the 1981 RAF attacks. All the prosecutor said in 1991 was that they were investigating the accusation, simply based upon the fact that years after the attacks, Susanne Albrecht had been granted exile as a citizen in East Germany with a new name and that a decade later, former East German citizens started passing rumors that "somebody looking like Christian Klar" had been seen on a Stasi training ground. Outside of these rumors, there is no factual, documentary, or any other evidence of Klar ever having entered East Germany at all, be it under his real name or a pseudonym. The source given for the overreaching statement in the article also says no more than that. No mention of a formal indictment at all, which never came for a reason, and it was not his seeming dementia. --2003:71:4E3F:3312:FC12:12D4:4997:4045 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have looked into the last sentence of that section, which talked about Klar and another person, and the two sources given ([1] and [2]) don't mention them, as far as I can see. I've removed that sentence. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the indictment for the attack on Kroesen was well-verified in two articles from the LA Times, so I don't really see a reason to remove it: the sources are reliable, and there are no BLP issues here, obviously. Your best course of action is to add reliably sourced information following the indictment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that not even the LA Times claims that Mielke was formally indicted for the attacks. All they say is that he was "accused", which is hearsay based upon the fact that the prosecutor said in 1991 they were looking into the accusation to see if they could find any evidence. Which they never did. Mielke was only ever indicted of murdering the two police officers at Bülowplatz in 1931. Later, he was investigated for the killed defectors from East Germany, but never indicted because of his dementia. Regarding the RAF attacks, there is no evidence he was even just investigated, much less indicted. All there is is one single mention of the prosecutor to the press in 1991 that they intended to "look into" the accusations regarding the RAF attacks. Which, it seems, they never actually did because it soon became clear it was all unsubstantiated rumours.
In other words: Asking me to cite evidence of his indictment for the RAF attacks when said indictment never happened is like asking me to prove I'm not Batman. --2003:71:4E3F:3312:FC12:12D4:4997:4045 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, play nice please. I've been pretty helpful to you so far; usually I charge $200 an hour, and I spent at least twenty minutes on you. The WMF has my PayPal information. Second, yes, they do claim he was indicted for that: "The indictment accused Mielke of aiding and abetting the group in the 1980 attempted killing of U.S. Gen. Frederik Kroesen and the bombing at the U.S. Ramstein air base." That's pretty clear. If that wording is incorrect, you cannot fault me for that. Third, I didn't ask to cite evidence etc etc., I asked you to "add reliably sourced information following the indictment". If you maintain that there was no indictment, the phrase is easily adjusted to "add reliably sourced information following the supposed indictment". You cannot tell me that after April 1991 there were no more reliable sources that discussed Mielke and his court case etc, or that the German newspapers never reported that accusations were withdrawn or proven unprovable or that charges were dropped. Ball is in your court. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that quote from? It's definitely not from the LA Times article used for that claim in the article. The relevant passages from the LA Times article are as follows: "Germany's chief prosecutor accused former East German security boss Erich Mielke of aiding in a 1981 terrorist attack on a U.S. general and announced that five of Mielke's onetime aides have been arrested. [...] Mielke and his aides also are suspected of helping in a 1981 car-bomb attack that injured 17 U.S. soldiers." Nothing is said of any indictment or charges. It was a single sensationalist press conference statement, and that's all that ever was to the Stasi-RAF connection.
Yes, there were many sources that discussed Mielke's court case, but it had nothing to do whatsoever with the RAF attacks as there was no evidence and no charges against Mielke in relation to them. That's why there are no legitimate, reliable sources outside of that one 1991 press conference (or solely referring to said press conference) that claim a Stasi-RAF connection. All Mielke was ever charged and tried for was for the 1931 Bülowplatz murders. When he was serving his sentence for the Bülowplatz murders, they were investigating him for the killed East-German defectors, but they never pressed charges about those because he was paroled or pardoned because of his dementia. Regarding the RAF attacks, he was never even officially investigated for them, much less even charged or tried for them. Again: His trial had nothing to do whatsoever with the RAF attacks. --2003:71:4E3F:3386:FC12:12D4:4997:4045 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent need for fact checking the sources

[edit]

In the introduction there is a senteces which reads as following: "He also oversaw the creation of pro-Soviet secret police and terrorist insurgencies in Western Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East." The problem is that there are no sources given to justify this statement. In my reseach about socialist armed groups in latin america, I haven't find any information about Soviets or any other satellite state influencing armed militias en this continent. Cuba indeed helped the guerrillas with military training, arms supplies and logistics, but that's the extension of a "Socialist Country" interfering in latin america. Unless that statement can be justified, I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.130.3 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and NPOV

[edit]

GoldenSensei (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Much of this article uses a book by Jack Koehler as a source. However, this source seems rather biased. Maybe it should not be so heavily relied on in this article.[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President

[edit]

The summary intro uses term President; those listed were General Secretary not 'president'?; and

Egon Krenz is missed from the list (EK was in office until December 3 1989)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.133.142 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Funder as a source

[edit]

Anna Funder’s ‘Stasiland’ is cited seven times in the article, but the book is unscholarly and relentlessly hostile towards East Germany. 2A02:8109:9700:1EA0:A56C:A4D3:6225:F133 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. She is cited by name seventeen times which is rather singular. Her observation that it was the most surveilled country is probably accurate though, don't you think? Sperrvåt (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State Secretary in the Ministry for State Security from 1950-1957?

[edit]

The article suggests that Mielke was the State Secretary in the Ministry for State Security from 1950-1957. However, according to my information, the MfS was degraded to a State Secretariat under the Ministry of the Interior between 1953 and 1955. So during this era, I do believe that Mielke was the Deputy State Secretary of the Secreatariat of State Security (Ernst Wollweber, was the State Secretary) (under Minister of the Interior Willi Stoph, and in 1955, Karl Maron) between 1953 and 1955. See this: https://www.bpb.de/themen/deutsche-teilung/stasi/258235/wer-war-erich-mielke/ "Erich Mielke war unter Wollweber nur noch der Stellvertreter des Staatssekretärs.". Kindest. /EriFr (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also these pages about Wollweber and Mielke:
/EriFr (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More on his time in the Spanish Civil war?

[edit]

Hopped over a little bit. Could we say more? Sperrvåt (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erich_Mielke&oldid=1223073351"