Talk:Ruhr Red Army

A fact from Ruhr Red Army appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1922 Red Ruhr Army workers' revolt was a response to the Kapp Putsch?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/June.

Wikipedia

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

verification?

'as a result of the Free Corps men who immediately killed everybody who was captured and was armed.'

? Sam [Spade] 16:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wrong title

This thing was called "Rote Ruhrarmee", not "Ruhr Rote Armee" (which makes absolutely no sense in German). The proper English translation therefore is "Red Ruhr Army" and certainly not "Ruhr Red Army." The opening sentence of the article has been correct in this regard since June 2004 -- fifteen years ago!. It is about time that the lemma is moved accordingly. I tried to do it, but a very alert rules arbiter reverted the move. --Cosal (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]