text:
Fritz Haarmann

Friedrich Heinrich Karl "Fritz" Haarmann (25 October 1879 – 15 April 1925) was a German serial rapist and serial killer, known as the Butcher of Hanover, the Vampire of Hanover and the Wolf Man, who committed the sexual assault, murder, mutilation and dismemberment of at least twenty-four young men and boys in the city of Hanover between 1918 and 1924.

Found guilty of twenty-four of the twenty-seven murders for which he was tried, Haarmann was sentenced to death by beheading in December 1924. He was subsequently executed by guillotine in April 1925.

Haarmann became known as the Butcher of Hanover (Der Schlächter von Hannover) due to the extensive mutilation and dismemberment committed upon his victims' bodies, and by such titles as the Vampire of Hanover (der Vampir von Hannover) and the Wolf Man (Wolfsmensch) because of his preferred murder method of biting into or through his victims' throats.

Childhood
Fritz Haarmann was born in Hanover on 25 October 1879, the sixth and youngest child born to Johanna (née Claudius) and Ollie Haarmann.

Haarmann was a quiet child, with few friends his own age or gender and who seldom socialized with any children outside of school with the exception of his siblings. From an early age, Haarmann's behaviour was noticeably effeminate, and he was known to shun boys' activities, instead playing with his sisters' dolls and dressing in their clothes. He also developed a passion for both needlework and cookery, and would develop a close relationship with his mother, who spoiled her youngest child.

Reportedly, Haarmann's father married his mother when she was 41 years old and seven years his senior, largely due to her wealth and the substantial dowry their marriage would eventually bring him. Haarmann Sr. was known to be argumentative and short-tempered and conducted several affairs throughout his marriage. Via his infidelity, he contracted syphilis in his later years. Despite his father being an authoritarian who had little time for his children and a notorious womanizer, Haarmann's parents remained together until his mother's death in April 1901.

In 1886, Haarmann began his schooling; he was noted by teachers to be a spoiled and mollycoddled child who was prone to daydreaming. Although his behaviour at school was noted to be exemplary, his academic performance was below average and Haarmann had to repeat a school year twice. On one occasion, when he was about eight years old, Haarmann was molested by one of his teachers, although he never discussed this incident in detail.

Haarmann grew into a trim, physically strong youth. With his parents' consent, he finished his schooling in 1894. Upon leaving school, he briefly obtained employment as an apprentice locksmith in Neuf-Brisach (now part of France) before opting at age 15 to enrol in a military academy in the town of Breisach. His military training began on 4 April 1895.

Adolescence and first offences
Haarmann initially adapted to military life and performed well as a trainee soldier. However, after five months of military service, he began to suffer periodic lapses of consciousness which, although initially described by a medical professional as being sudden signs of anxiety neurosis, were subsequently diagnosed as being "equivalent to epilepsy" in October 1895. The following month, Haarmann discharged himself from the military and returned to Hanover, where he briefly worked in a cigar factory his father had established in 1888.

At age 16, Haarmann committed his first known sexual offences, all of which involved young boys whom he would lure to secluded areas—typically cellars—before proceeding to sexually abuse them. He was first arrested for committing offences of this nature in July 1896. Following further offences, the Division for Criminal Matters opted to place Haarmann in a mental institution in the city of Hildesheim in February 1897. Although briefly transferred to a Hanover hospital for psychiatric evaluation, he would be certified as being "incurably deranged" and unfit to stand trial by a psychologist named Gurt Schmalfuß. Schmalfuß ordered Haarmann to be confined at the mental institution indefinitely. He was returned to the institution on 28 May 1897.

Seven months later, in January 1898, Haarmann escaped the mental institution and, with apparent assistance from his mother, he fled to Zürich in Switzerland. Here, he lived with a relative of his mother and obtained employment as a handyman in a shipyard. Haarmann remained in Zürich for sixteen months before he returned to Hanover in April 1899. Early the following year, he seduced and subsequently became engaged to a woman named Erna Loewert, who soon became pregnant with his child. In October 1900, Haarmann received notification to perform his compulsory military service.

Military service
On 12 October 1900, Haarmann was deployed to the Alsatian city of Colmar to serve in the Number 10 Rifle Battalion. Throughout his service, he earned a reputation among his superiors as an exemplary soldier and excellent marksman, and he would later describe this period of service as being the happiest of his entire life. After collapsing while on exercise with his battalion in October 1901, Haarmann began to suffer dizzy spells and was subsequently hospitalized for over four months. He was later deemed "unsuitable for [military] service and work" and was discharged on 28 July 1902.

Discharged from the military under medical terms described as being "probable" dementia praecox, Haarmann was awarded a monthly pension of 21 gold marks. He returned to live with Erna in Hanover, briefly working again in his father's cigar factory. However, he soon filed a maintenance lawsuit against his father, citing that he was unable to work due to the ailments noted by the military. Haarmann's father successfully contested the suit and the charges were dropped. The following year, a violent fight between father and son resulted in Haarmann's father himself unsuccessfully initiating legal proceedings against his son, citing verbal death threats and blackmail as justification to have his son returned to a mental institution. These charges were dropped due to a lack of corroborating evidence. Nonetheless, Haarmann was ordered to undertake a psychiatric examination in May 1903. This examination was conducted by a Dr. Andrae, who concluded that, although morally inferior, Haarmann was not mentally unstable.

With financial assistance from his father, Haarmann and his fiancée opened a fishmongery. Haarmann himself briefly attempted to work as an insurance salesman before being officially classified as disabled and unable to work by the 10th Army in 1904. As a result, his monthly pension was slightly increased. The same year, his fiancée, while pregnant with his child, terminated their engagement after he accused her of having an affair with a student. As the fishmongery was registered in her name, Erna simply ordered her fiancé to leave the premises.

Criminal career
For the next decade, Haarmann primarily lived as a petty thief, burglar, and con artist. Although he did occasionally obtain legitimate employment, he invariably stole from his employers or their customers. Beginning in 1905, he served several short prison sentences for offences such as larceny, embezzlement, and assault. On one occasion when working legitimately as an invoice clerk, Haarmann became acquainted with a female employee with whom he later claimed to have robbed several tombstones and graves between 1905 and 1913 (he was never charged with these offences). Consequently, Haarmann spent the majority of the years between 1905 and 1912 in jail.

In late 1913, Haarmann was arrested for burglary. A search of his home revealed a hoard of stolen property linking him to several other burglaries. Despite protesting his innocence, Haarmann was charged with and convicted of a series of burglaries and frauds. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for these offences.

Due to compulsory conscription resulting from the outbreak of World War I, Germany saw a shortage of available domestic manpower. In the final years of his prison sentence, Haarmann was permitted to work throughout the day in the grounds of various manor houses near the town of Rendsburg, with instructions to return to prison each evening. Upon his release from prison in April 1918, he initially moved to Berlin before opting to return to Hanover, where he briefly lived with one of his sisters before renting a single-room apartment in late August 1918.

According to Haarmann, he was struck by the poverty of the German nation as a result of the loss the nation had suffered in World War I. Through his initial efforts to both trade and purchase stolen property at Hanover Central Station, Haarmann established several criminal contacts with whom he could trade in contraband property, and he immediately reverted to the criminal life he had lived before his 1913 arrest.

Police informant
Despite police knowledge that Haarmann was both a known criminal and a known homosexual, he gradually began to establish a relationship with law enforcement as an informer, largely as a means of redirecting the attention of the police from himself in his own criminal activities, and to facilitate his access to young males. By 1919, Haarmann is known to have regularly patrolled Hanover station, and to have provided police with information relating to the city's extensive criminal network. With the cooperation of several police officials, Haarmann devised a ruse whereby he would offer to fence or store stolen property at his premises, then pass this information to police, who would then raid his property at agreed times and arrest these contacts. To remove any suspicion as to his treachery reaching the criminal fraternity, Haarmann himself would be arrested in these raids. Moreover, on numerous occasions, he is known to have performed citizen's arrests upon commuters for offences such as travelling on forged documents. As a result of these activities, police began to rely on Haarmann as a reliable source of information regarding various criminal activities in Hanover, and he was allowed to patrol the station largely at will.

Known and alleged murders
Between 1918 and 1924, Haarmann committed at least twenty-four murders, although he is suspected of murdering a minimum of twenty-seven. All of his victims were males between the ages of 10 and 22, the majority of whom were in their mid- to late-teens. The victims were lured back to one of three addresses in which Haarmann is known to have resided throughout those years. He is known to have killed upon the promise of assistance, accommodation, work, or under the pretence of arrest. At Haarmann's apartment, the victim was typically given food and drink before Haarmann bit into his Adam's apple, often as he was strangled. Often this caused the victim to die of asphyxiation, but on several occasions Haarmann bit completely through his victims' Adams apple and trachea. (Haarmann referred to the act of biting through his victims' neck as his "love bite".)

All of Haarmann's known victims were dismembered before their bodies were discarded, usually in the Leine River, although the dismembered body of his first known victim had simply been buried, and the body of his last victim had been thrown into a lake located at the entrance to the Herrenhausen Gardens.

Haarmann typically kept his victims' personal possessions for himself or for his lover, Hans Grans. Alternatively, they would be sold on the black market through criminal contacts he and Grans had established at Hanover Central Station. However, the personal possessions of some victims were sold to legitimate retailers. In several instances, both Haarmann and Grans gave possessions belonging to various victims to acquaintances as gifts.

Following Haarmann's arrest, rumours circulated that Haarmann ate the flesh of his victims, or sold it on the black market as pork or horse meat. Although no evidence was ever produced to confirm these theories, Haarmann was known to be an active trader in contraband meat, which was invariably boneless, diced, and often sold as ground meat. When asked where he obtained the meat, Haarmann sometimes said he had obtained the produce from a butcher named "Karl", although investigators would later note that the stories Haarmann told his acquaintances regarding the origins of this individual varied.

First known victim
Haarmann's first known victim was a 17-year-old runaway named Friedel Rothe. When Rothe disappeared on 25 September 1918, his friends told police he was last seen with Haarmann, who at the time resided in a single-room apartment at 27 Cellerstraße. Under pressure from Rothe's family, police raided Haarmann's apartment in October 1918, where they found him in the company of a semi-naked 13-year-old boy. He was charged with both the sexual assault and battery of a minor, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. (Haarmann later said to detectives that when they searched his apartment, the head of Friedel Rothe was stowed behind his stove wrapped in newspaper.)

Haarmann avoided serving his sentence throughout 1919. That October, he met an 18-year-old youth named Hans Grans, who had run away from his home in Berlin following an argument with his father on 1 October. Grans had slept rough in and around Hanover station for approximately two weeks—selling old clothes in and around the station to earn enough money to simply eat—before he encountered Haarmann.

Relationship with Hans Grans
In his subsequent confessions to police, Grans stated that, although his sexual orientation was heterosexual, he himself initiated contact with Haarmann, with the intention of prostituting himself, having heard of Haarmann's homosexuality through acquaintances he had established in Hanover. Haarmann himself stated following his arrest that he viewed Grans as being "like a son" to him, adding that he "pulled him [Grans] out of the ditch and tried to make sure he didn't go to the dogs."

Shortly after their initial acquaintance, Haarmann invited the youth to move into his apartment, and Grans became Haarmann's lover and criminal accomplice. According to Haarmann, although he was smitten with Grans, he gradually became aware the youth manipulated and, occasionally, mocked him. A few times Grans was evicted after heated arguments only for Haarmann to plead with him to come back. Despite the manipulation Haarmann endured at the hands of his accomplice, he later claimed to tolerate the capitulation as he craved Grans' companionship and affection, adding: "I had to have someone I meant everything to."

Haarmann served the nine-month prison sentence imposed in 1918 for sexual assault and battery between March and December 1920. Upon his release, he again regained the trust of the police and again became an informer. Haarmann initially resided in a hotel, before he and Grans lodged with a middle-class family.

Through criminal contacts, Haarmann became aware of a vacant ground-floor apartment located at 8 Neue Straße. The apartment was located in a densely populated, old house located alongside the Leine River. Haarmann secured a letting agreement with the landlady, ostensibly to use the property for storage purposes. He and Grans moved into 8 Neue Straße on 1 July 1921.

1923
Haarmann's subsequent victims largely consisted of young male commuters, runaways and, occasionally, male prostitutes, whom he would typically encounter in or around Hanover's central railway station. The second murder Haarmann is known to have committed occurred on 12 February 1923. The victim was a 17-year-old pianist named Fritz Franke, whom Haarmann encountered at Hanover Central Station and invited to his Neue Straße residence, where he introduced the youth to Hans Grans and two female acquaintances (one of whom was Grans' female lover). According to Grans' lover, that evening, Grans whispered in her ear: "Hey! He's going to be trampled on today." The following day, both these acquaintances returned to Haarmann's apartment, where they were informed by Haarmann that Franke had travelled to Hamburg. Speculation remains as to Grans' knowledge of Haarmann's intentions towards Franke when he made this comment to the two female acquaintances. According to Haarmann, following this murder, Grans arrived unannounced at his apartment, where he observed Franke's nude body lying upon Haarmann's bed. Grans had then simply looked at him and asked, "When shall I come back again?"

Five weeks after the murder of Franke, on 20 March, Haarmann encountered a 17-year-old commuter named Wilhelm Schulze at Hanover station. Schulze had been travelling to work when he encountered Haarmann. No human remains identified as belonging to Schulze were ever found, although most of his clothing was in the possession of Haarmann's landlady, Elisabeth Engel, at the time of his arrest. Two more victims are known to have been murdered at 8 Neue Straße before Haarmann vacated the apartment in June: 16-year-old Roland Huch, who disappeared on 23 May after informing a close friend he intended to run away from home and join the Marines; and 19-year-old Hans Sonnenfeld, who disappeared on or about 31 May and whose distinctive yellow overcoat Haarmann is known to have worn after the youth's murder.

On 9 June 1923, Haarmann moved into a single-room attic apartment at 2 Rote Reihe. Two weeks after moving into this address, on 25 June, Ernst Ehrenberg, the 13-year-old son of Haarmann's neighbour, disappeared while running an errand for his father. His school cap and braces would be found in Haarmann's apartment following his arrest. Two months later, on 24 August, an 18-year-old office clerk named Heinrich Struß was reported missing by his aunt (with whom he lived). Many of Struß's belongings would also be found in Haarmann's apartment. Struß's murder would be followed one month later by the murder of a 17-year-old named Paul Bronischewski, who disappeared en route to the city of Bochum, having worked with his uncle in Saxony-Anhalt throughout the summer. Subsequent police enquiries suggested Bronischewski had likely alighted the train at Hanover, where he evidently encountered Haarmann. Bronischewski's jacket, knapsack, trousers, and towel would all be found in the possession of Haarmann following his arrest.

Haarmann is next known to have killed on or about 30 September 1923. The victim was 17-year-old Richard Gräf, who last informed his family he had met an individual at Hanover station who "knows of a good job for me." Two weeks later, on 12 October, a 16-year-old Gehrden youth named Wilhelm Erdner failed to return home from work. Subsequent enquiries by Erdner's parents revealed the youth became acquainted with a Detective Fritz Honnerbrock (a pseudonym used by Haarmann) shortly before his disappearance. Both Haarmann and Grans subsequently sold Erdner's bicycle on 20 October. Within a week of having sold this bicycle, Haarmann killed two further victims: 15-year-old Hermann Wolf, who disappeared from Hanover station on 24 October, and 13-year-old Heinz Brinkmann, who was seen by a witness standing in the entrance to Hanover station at 11 pm on 27 October, having missed his train home to the town of Clausthal.

On 10 November 1923, a 17-year-old apprentice carpenter from the city of Düsseldorf named Adolf Hannappel disappeared from Hanover station. He was seen by several witnesses sitting upon a trunk in the waiting room. These witnesses also positively identified Hans Grans—in the company of Haarmann—pointing towards the youth, who shortly thereafter was observed walking towards a café in the company of these two men. One month later, on 6 December 19-year-old Adolf Hennies disappeared. He had been seeking employment at the time of his disappearance. None of the human remains recovered were identified as belonging to Hennies, whom Haarmann specifically admitted to dismembering, but denied killing. In subsequent court testimony vehemently disputed by Grans, Haarmann claimed he returned home to find Hennies's body—missing his signature "love bite"—lying naked on his bed, with Grans and another criminal acquaintance named Hugo Wittkowski stating the youth was, "One of yours." (Neither Haarmann nor Grans were convicted of Hennies's murder due to conflicting testimony. )

1924
The first victim killed by Haarmann in 1924 was 17-year-old Ernst Spiecker, who disappeared on 5 January. Although subsequent trial testimony from a friend of Spiecker indicated Haarmann had become acquainted with this youth before his murder, Haarmann stated he would simply have to "assume" this youth was one of his victims due to all his personal possessions being found in his or Grans' possession following his arrest. Ten days later, Haarmann killed a 20-year-old named Heinrich Koch, whom he is also believed to have been acquainted with prior to the youth's murder. The following month, Haarmann is known to have killed two further victims: 19-year-old Willi Senger, who disappeared from the suburb of Linden-Limmer on 2 February, having informed his sister he was to travel with a friend; and 16-year-old Hermann Speichert, who was last seen by his sister on 8 February.

Haarmann is not known to have killed again until on or about 1 April, when he is believed to have killed an acquaintance named Hermann Bock. Although cleared of this murder at his trial, Haarmann was in possession of Bock's clothing when arrested, and he is known to have given the youth's suitcase to his landlady; moreover, Haarmann is known to have actively dissuaded several of Bock's acquaintances from reporting the youth missing. One week later, on 8 April 16-year-old Alfred Hogrefe disappeared from Hanover station, having run away from home in the town of Lehrte on 2 April. Hogrefe's murder would be followed 9 days later by that of a 16-year-old apprentice named Wilhelm Apel, whom Haarmann encountered on his "patrols" of Hanover-Leinhausen station.

On 26 April 18-year-old Robert Witzel disappeared after borrowing 50 pfennigs from his mother, explaining he intended to visit a travelling circus. Enquiries by the youth's parents revealed their son had accompanied an "official from the railway station" to the circus. Haarmann himself would later state he killed Witzel the same evening and, having dismembered the youth's body, had thrown the remains into the Leine River.

Two weeks after the murder of Witzel, Haarmann killed a 14-year-old named Heinz Martin, who was last seen by his mother on 9 May and who is believed to have been abducted from Hanover station. All his clothing was later found in Haarmann's apartment. Less than three weeks later, on 26 May, a 17-year-old travelling salesman from the town of Kassel named Fritz Wittig, whom Haarmann would later state he killed upon the insistence of Grans as he had worn a "good new suit" Grans coveted, was dismembered and discarded in the Leine River. The same day Wittig is believed to have been killed, Haarmann killed his youngest known victim, 10-year-old Friedrich Abeling, who disappeared while truant from school. His murder would be followed less than two weeks later by that of 16-year-old Friedrich Koch, who was approached by Haarmann on 5 June as he walked to college. Two acquaintances of Koch would later testify at Haarmann's trial that, as they walked with Koch to college, Haarmann approached Koch, tapped the youth on the boot with his walking stick and stated: "Well, boy, don't you recognize me?"

Haarmann killed his final victim, 17-year-old Erich de Vries, on 14 June 1924. De Vries encountered Haarmann at Hanover station. His dismembered body would later be found in a lake located near the entrance to the Herrenhausen Gardens. Haarmann would confess it had taken him four separate trips to carry de Vries's dismembered remains—carried in the leather bag which had belonged to Friedrich Koch—to the location where he had disposed of them.

Discoveries
On 17 May 1924, two children playing near the Leine River discovered a human skull. Determined to be that of a young male aged between 18 and 20 and bearing evidence of knife wounds, police were sceptical as to whether a murder had been committed or whether the skull had either been discarded in this location by grave robbers, or placed there in a tasteless prank by medical students. Furthermore, police theorized the skull may have been discarded in the river at Alfeld, which had recently experienced an outbreak of typhoid. Two weeks later, on 29 May, a second skull was found behind a mill race located close to the scene of the earlier discovery. This skull was also identified as having been that of a young male aged between 18 and 20. Shortly thereafter, two boys playing in a field close to the village of Döhren discovered a sack containing numerous human bones.

Two more skulls would be found on 13 June: one upon the banks of the Leine River; and another located close to a mill in west Hanover. Each of the skulls had been removed from the vertebrae with a sharp instrument. One skull belonged to a male in his late teens, whereas the other belonged to a boy estimated to have been aged between 11 and 13 years old. In addition, one of these skulls also bore evidence of having been scalped.

For more than a year prior to these discoveries, rumours had circulated in Hanover about the fate of the sheer number of children and teenagers who had been reported missing in the city. The discoveries sparked fresh rumours regarding missing and murdered children. In addition, various newspapers responded to these discoveries and the resulting rumours by harking to the disproportionate number of young people who had been reported missing in Hanover between 1918 and 1924.

On 8 June, several hundred Hanover residents converged close to the Leine River and searched both the banks of the river and the surrounding areas, discovering a number of human bones, which were handed to the police. In response to these latest discoveries, police decided to drag the entire section of the river which ran through the centre of the city. In doing so, they discovered more than 500 further human bones and sections of bodies, many bearing knife striations, which were later confirmed by a court doctor as having belonged to at least 22 separate human individuals. Approximately half of the remains had been in the river for some time, whereas other bones and body parts had been discarded in the river more recently. Many of the recent and aged discoveries bore evidence of having been dissected—particularly at the joints. Over 30 per cent of the remains were judged to have belonged to young males aged between 15 and 20.

Suspicion for the discoveries quickly fell upon Haarmann, who was known to both the police and the criminal investigation department as a homosexual who had amassed fifteen previous convictions dating from 1896 for various offences including child molestation and the sexual assault and battery of a minor. Moreover, he had been connected to the 1918 disappearances of Friedel Rothe and a 14-year-old named Hermann Koch (who had disappeared weeks prior to Rothe). Haarmann was placed under surveillance. Being a trusted police informant, Haarmann was known to frequent Hanover Central Station. As he was well known to many officers from Hanover, two young policemen were drafted from Berlin to pose as undercover officers and discreetly observe his movements. The surveillance of Haarmann began on 18 June 1924.

Arrest
On the night of 22 June, Haarmann was observed by the two undercover officers prowling Hanover's central station. He was soon observed arguing with a 15-year-old boy named Karl Fromm, then approaching police and insisting they arrest the youth on the charge of travelling upon forged documents. Upon his arrest, Fromm informed police he had been living with Haarmann for four days, and that he had been repeatedly raped by his accuser, sometimes as a knife was held to his throat. Haarmann was arrested the following morning and charged with sexual assault.

Following his arrest, Haarmann's attic apartment at No. 2 Rote Reihe was searched. Haarmann had lived in this single-room apartment since June 1923. The flooring, walls and bedding within the apartment were found to be extensively bloodstained. Haarmann initially attempted to explain this fact as a by-product of his illegal trading in contraband meat. Various acquaintances and former neighbours of Haarmann were also extensively questioned as to his activities. Many fellow tenants and neighbours of the various addresses in which Haarmann lived since 1920 commented to detectives about the number of teenage boys they observed visiting his various addresses. Moreover, some had seen him leaving his property with concealed sacks, bags, or baskets—invariably in the late evening or early morning hours. Two former tenants informed police that, in the spring of 1924, they had discreetly followed Haarmann from his apartment and observed him discarding a heavy sack into the Leine River.

The clothes and personal possessions found at Haarmann's apartment and in the possession of his acquaintances were suspected as being the property of missing youths: all were confiscated and put on display at Hanover Police Station, with the parents of missing teenage boys from across Germany invited to look at the items. As the days passed, an increasing number of items were identified by family members as having belonged to their sons and brothers. Haarmann initially attempted to dismiss these revelations as being circumstantial in nature. He claimed that the majority of the clothes had been acquired through his business (trading used clothing), and that the remaining items had been left behind by youths with whom he'd engaged in consensual sexual activity.

The turning point came on 29 June when clothes, boots, and keys found stowed at Haarmann's apartment were identified as belonging to a missing 18-year-old named Robert Witzel. A skull that had been found in a garden on 20 May (which was not initially connected with other skeletal discoveries determined to be linked to Haarmann) was identified as that of the missing youth. A friend of Witzel's then identified the police officer whom Witzel had been seen with on the day of his disappearance as Haarmann.

Confronted with this evidence, Haarmann briefly attempted to bluster his way out of these latest and most damning pieces of evidence. When Witzel's jacket was found in the possession of his landlady and he was confronted with various witnesses' testimony as to his destroying identification marks on the clothing, he broke down and had to be supported by his sister.

Confession
Faced with this latest evidence, and upon the urging of his sister, Haarmann confessed to raping, killing, and dismembering many young men in what he initially described as a "rabid sexual passion" between 1918 and 1924. According to Haarmann, he never actually intended to murder any of his victims, but would be seized by an irresistible urge to bite into or through their Adam's apple —often as he manually strangled them—in the throes of ecstasy, before typically collapsing atop the victim's body. Only one intended victim had escaped from Haarmann's apartment after he attempted to bite into his Adam's apple, although this individual is not known to have reported the attack to police.

All of Haarmann's victims' bodies were disposed of via dismemberment shortly after their murder, and Haarmann was insistent that he found the act of dismemberment extremely unpleasant; he had, he stated, been ill for eight days after his first murder. Nonetheless, Haarmann was insistent that his passion at the moment of murder was invariably "stronger than the horror of the cutting and the chopping" which would inevitably follow, and would typically take up to two days to complete.

To fortify himself to dismember his victims' bodies, Haarmann would pour himself a cup of strong black coffee, then place the body of his victim upon the floor of this apartment and cover the face with cloth, before first removing the intestines, which he would place inside a bucket. A towel would then be repeatedly placed inside the abdominal cavity to soak the collecting blood. He would then make three cuts between the victim's ribs and shoulders, then "take hold of the ribs and push until the bones around the shoulders broke." The victim's heart, lungs and kidneys would then be removed, diced, and placed in the same bucket which held the intestines before the legs and arms would be severed from the body. Haarmann would then begin paring the flesh from the limbs and torso. This surplus flesh would be disposed of in the toilet or, usually, in the nearby river.

The final section of the victims' bodies to be dismembered was invariably the head. After severing the head from the torso, Haarmann would use a small kitchen knife to strip all flesh from the skull, which he would then wrap in rags and place face downwards upon a pile of straw and bludgeon with an axe until the skull splintered, enabling him to access the brain. This he would also place in a bucket, which he would pour, alongside the "chopped up bones" in the Leine.

Haarmann was insistent that none of the skulls found in the Leine belonged to his victims, and that the forensic identification of the skull of Robert Witzel was mistaken, as he had almost invariably smashed his victims' skulls to pieces. The exceptions being those of his earliest victims—killed several years prior to his arrest—and that of his last victim, Erich de Vries. Although insistent that none of his murders were premeditated, investigators discovered much circumstantial evidence suggesting that several murders had been planned hours or days in advance, and that Haarmann had both concocted explanations for his victims' disappearances and dissuaded acquaintances of his victims from filing missing persons' reports with Hanover police. Investigators also noted that Haarmann would only confess to murders for which there existed evidence against him; on one occasion, Haarmann stated: "There are some [victims] you don't know about, but it's not those you think."

When asked how many victims he killed, Haarmann claimed, "Somewhere between 50 and 70." The police, however, could only connect Haarmann with the disappearance of 27 youths, and he was charged with 27 murders—some of which he claimed were committed upon the insistence of Hans Grans, who was arrested on 8 July, and formally charged with being an accessory to murder one week later.

On 16 August 1924, Haarmann underwent a psychological examination at a Göttingen medical school; on 25 September, he was judged competent to stand trial and returned to Hanover to await trial.

Trial
The trial of Fritz Haarmann and Hans Grans began on 4 December 1924. Haarmann was charged with the murder of 27 boys and young men who had disappeared between September 1918 and June 1924. In 14 of these cases, Haarmann—who insisted upon conducting his own defence—acknowledged his guilt, although he claimed to be uncertain of the identification of the remaining 13 victims upon the list of charges. Grans pleaded not guilty to charges of being an accessory to murder in several of the murders. Initially, following a thorough security search, all members of the public were permitted access to the courtroom, although by the third day the judge excluded all spectators from the courtroom in the opening days of the trial as each murder was discussed in detail, due to the ongoing carnal and gruesome nature of the revelations.

The trial was one of the first major modern media events in Germany, and received extensive international press coverage, being described as the "most revolting [case] in German criminal history." Varying sensational headlines—in which Haarmann was variously referred to by such titles as the "Butcher of Hanover," the "Vampire of Hanover," and the "Wolf Man"—continuously appeared in the press.

Although Haarmann denied any premeditation in the crimes, and remained adamant the ultimate reason he killed was a "mystery" to him, he readily confessed to having killed 14 of the victims for whose murder he was tried and to retaining and selling many of their possessions, although he denied having sold the body parts of any of his victims as contraband meat. Haarmann's denial that he had either consumed or sold human flesh would be supported by a medical expert, who testified on 6 December that none of the meat found in Haarmann's apartment following his arrest was human.

When asked to identify photographs of his victims, Haarmann became taciturn and dismissive as he typically claimed to be unable to recognize any of his victims' photographs; however, in instances where he claimed to be unable to recognize his victims' faces but the victims' clothing or other personal belongings had been found in his possession, he would simply shrug and make comments to the effect of, "I probably killed him," or: "Charge it to me; it's alright with me." For example, when asked to identify a photograph of victim Alfred Hogrefe, Haarmann stated: "I certainly assume I killed Hogrefe, but I don't remember his face."

Numerous exhibits were introduced into evidence in the opening days of the trial, including 285 sections of the skeletal structure—particularly skulls and thigh bones —recovered from the Leine River and forensically determined as belonging to young men under 20 years of age, the bucket which he used to store and transport human remains, and the extensively bloodstained camp bed upon which he had killed many of the victims at his Rote Reihe address. As had been the case when earlier asked whether he could recognize the photographs of any of his victims, Haarmann's demeanour became dismissive upon the introduction of these exhibits; he denied any of the skulls introduced into evidence belonged to his victims, stating he had almost invariably "mashed" the victims' skulls, and had thrown only one undamaged skull into the river.

Several acquaintances and criminal associates of Haarmann testified for the prosecution, including former neighbours who testified to having purchased brawn or mince from Haarmann, whom they noted regularly left his apartment with packages of meat, but rarely arrived with them. Haarmann's landlady, Elisabeth Engel, testified that Haarmann would regularly pour chopped pieces of meat into boiling water and would strain fat from meat Haarmann claimed was pork. This fat would invariably be poured into bottles. On one occasion in April 1924, Haarmann's landlady and her family became ill after eating sausages in skins Haarmann claimed were sheep's intestines. Another neighbour testified to the alarming number of youths whom he had seen entering Haarmann's Neue Straße apartment, but whom he seldom observed leaving the address. This neighbour assumed Haarmann was selling youths to the Foreign Legion; another neighbour testified to having observed Haarmann throw a sack of bones into the Leine River. Two female acquaintances of Hans Grans also testified how, on one occasion in 1923, they discovered what they believed to be a human mouth boiling in a soup kettle in Haarmann's apartment; these witnesses testified they had taken the item to Hanover police, who simply replied the piece of flesh may be a pig's snout.

Police scrutiny
By the second week of the trial, testimony was introduced about how much the police knew about Haarmann's criminal activities after his 1918 release from prison. The police apparently never suspected him for any of the cases of missing boys and young men in Hanover in 1923 and 1924, even though some of the victims were last seen in his company, and he had a long criminal record that included charges of sexual assault and battery.

Conviction
The trial lasted barely two weeks, and a total of 190 witnesses testified. On 19 December 1924, court reconvened to impose sentence upon both defendants. Judged sane and accountable for his actions, Haarmann was found guilty of 24 of the 27 murders and sentenced to death by beheading. He was acquitted of three murders which he denied committing. Upon hearing the sentence, Haarmann stood before the court and proclaimed, "I accept the verdict fully and freely", before adding: "I [shall] go to the decapitating block joyfully and happily." Grans became hysterical upon hearing he had been found guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced to death by beheading in relation to the murder of victim Adolf Hannappel, with an additional sentence of 12 years' imprisonment imposed for being an accessory to murder in the case of victim Fritz Wittig. Upon returning to his cell after hearing the verdict, Grans collapsed.

In the case of Hannappel, several witnesses testified to having seen Grans, in the company of Haarmann, pointing towards the youth. Haarmann claimed this was one of two murders committed upon the insistence of Grans and for this reason, Grans was sentenced to death. In the case of Wittig, police found a handwritten note from Haarmann, dated the day of Wittig's disappearance and signed by both him and Grans, in which Grans agreed to pay Haarmann 20 gold marks for the youth's suit. As the note indicated Grans' possible knowledge in the disappearance of Wittig, he was convicted of being an accomplice to Haarmann in this murder and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. Haarmann made no appeal against the verdict; claiming his death would atone for his crimes and stating that, were he at liberty, he would likely kill again. Grans did lodge an appeal against his sentence, although his appeal was rejected on 6 February 1925.

Execution
At 6 o'clock on the morning of 15 April 1925, Haarmann was beheaded by guillotine in the grounds of Hanover prison. His executioner was Carl Gröpler. In accordance with German tradition, Haarmann was not informed of his execution date until the prior evening. Upon receipt of the news, he observed prayer with his pastor, before being granted his final wishes of an expensive cigar to smoke and Brazilian coffee to drink in his cell.

No members of the press were permitted to witness the execution, and the event was seen by only a handful of witnesses. According to published reports, although Haarmann was pale and nervous, he maintained a sense of bravado as he walked to the guillotine. The last words Haarmann spoke were: "I am guilty, gentlemen, but, hard though it may be, I want to die as a man." Immediately prior to placing his head upon the execution apparatus, Haarmann added: "I repent, but I do not fear death."

Victims
The true tally of Haarmann's victims will never be known. Following his arrest, Haarmann made several imprecise statements regarding both the actual number of his victims he killed, and when he began killing. Initially, Haarmann claimed to have killed "maybe 30, maybe 40" victims; later, he would claim the true number of victims he had killed was between 50 and 70.

Footnotes Haarmann was acquitted of three murders at his trial: those of Adolf Hennies, Hermann Wolf, and Hermann Bock. In each instance, strong circumstantial evidence existed attesting to his guilt.

In the case of Hermann Wolf, police established that prior to the youth's disappearance, he had informed his father he had conversed with a detective at Hanover station. Haarmann is known to have given many of Wolf's clothes to his landlady in the days immediately following his 44th birthday (shortly after Wolf was reported missing). Moreover, the youth's distinctive belt buckle was found at Haarmann's Rote Reihe address. Haarmann only chose to deny this murder midway through his trial, following heated threats made against him by the father of the murdered youth.

Haarmann was acquitted of the murder of Adolf Hennies due to conflicting testimony regarding the circumstances as to whether he or Grans actually murdered the youth. Although Haarmann admitted at his trial to having dismembered Hennies's body, he claimed to have returned to his apartment and "found a dead body lying there," to which, he claimed, Grans simply replied, "One of yours." Grans would deny this claim, and would state that he had bought Hennies's distinctive coat from Haarmann for eight Marks, after having been warned the coat was stolen. Due to this conflicting testimony, and the lack of an actual witness to the murder, neither Haarmann nor Grans were convicted of Hennies's murder.

In the case of Hermann Bock, several friends of his testified at Haarmann's trial that, prior to Haarmann's arrest, they were actively dissuaded from filing a missing person report with police; these witnesses testified that Haarmann was insistent on filing the report himself (he had never done so). Other witnesses testified to having acquired various personal possessions belonging to the youth from Haarmann. In addition, a tailor testified at Haarmann's trial to having been asked by Haarmann to alter the suit. Haarmann repeatedly contradicted himself regarding his claims as to how he acquired the youth's possessions. It is likely that Haarmann chose to deny this murder due to evidence suggesting the murder had been premeditated, as opposed to being committed in the throes of passion. He had known the youth for several years prior to his murder, and Bock was known to be heterosexual. Due to his denial of having committed this particular murder, Haarmann was acquitted.

Hermann Koch
In September 1918, Haarmann is believed to have killed a 14-year-old named Hermann Koch, a youth who disappeared just weeks prior to his first confirmed victim, Friedel Rothe. Haarmann is known to have kept company with Koch. He is also known to have written a letter to Koch's school providing an explanation for the youth's prolonged absence. As had been the case in the disappearance of Friedel Rothe, police had searched Haarmann's Cellerstraße apartment in search of the youth, although no trace of Koch was found and charges against Haarmann in relation to the disappearance were dropped. Koch's father had petitioned in 1921 for Haarmann to be tried for his son's murder however his requests were officially rejected.

Hans Keimes
Haarmann is also strongly suspected of the murder of Hans Keimes, a 17-year-old Hanover youth who was reported missing on 17 March 1922 and whose nude, bound body was found in a canal on 6 May. The cause of death was listed as strangulation, and the body bore no signs of mutilation. A distinctive handkerchief bearing Grans' name was found lodged in Keimes's throat.

Prior to the discovery of Keimes's body, Haarmann is known to have both visited the youth's parents offering to locate their son and to have immediately thereafter informed police that he believed Grans was responsible for Keimes's disappearance. However, Hans Grans is known to have been in custody at the time of the disappearance of Keimes.

Two weeks before the disappearance of Keimes, Haarmann had returned to his Neue Straße apartment, having served six months in a labour camp for several acts of theft he committed in August 1921. Upon his return, Haarmann discovered that Grans had stolen much of his personal property and fraudulently obtained and spent his military pension while he had been incarcerated. This resulted in a violent argument between the two men culminating in Haarmann evicting Grans. Shortly thereafter, Grans and a criminal acquaintance named Hugo Wittkowski returned and further ransacked the apartment. It is likely Haarmann committed the murder of Keimes in an attempt to frame Grans in reprisal for the theft of his property and pension.

Haarmann was not tried for the murder of either Koch or Keimes. Officially, both cases remain unsolved.

Aftermath
Following Haarmann's execution, sections of his brain were removed for forensic analysis. An examination of slices of Haarmann's brain revealed traces of meningitis, although no sections of Haarmann's brain were permanently preserved. Nonetheless, Haarmann's head was preserved in formaldehyde and remained in the possession of the Göttingen medical school from 1925 until 2014, when it was cremated.

The remains of Haarmann's victims which had been recovered were buried together in a communal grave in Stöckener Cemetery in February 1925. In April 1928, a large granite memorial in the form of a triptych, inscribed with the names and ages of the victims, was erected over the communal grave.

The discovery of a letter from Haarmann declaring Hans Grans' innocence subsequently led to Grans receiving a second trial. This letter was dated 5 February 1925, and was addressed to the father of Grans. In this letter, Haarmann claimed that although he had been frustrated at having been seen as little more than a "meal ticket" by Grans, Grans "had absolutely no idea that I killed". Furthermore, Haarmann claimed many of his accusations against Grans prior to his trial were obtained under extreme duress, and that he falsely accused Grans of instigating the murders of Hannappel and Witzel as a means of revenge. Haarmann claimed that his pastor would be informed as to the contents and the authenticity of the letter.

Hans Grans was retried in January 1926. He was charged with aiding and abetting Haarmann in the murders of victims Adolf Hannappel and Fritz Wittig. Although Grans stated in one address to the judge at this second trial that he expected to be acquitted, on 19 January, he was again found guilty of aiding and abetting Haarmann in both cases, although in this instance, he was sentenced to two concurrent 12-year sentences. After serving this 12-year sentence, Grans was extralegally interned in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where he remained until the camp's liberation in April 1945. Following the conclusion of the Second World War, he continued to live in Hanover until his death in 1975.

The murders committed by Haarmann stirred much discussion in Germany regarding methods used in police investigation, the treatment of mentally ill offenders, and the validity of the death penalty. However, the most heated topic of discussion in relation to the murders committed by Haarmann were issues relating to the subject of homosexuality, which was then illegal and punishable by imprisonment in Germany. The discovery of the murders subsequently stirred a wave of homophobia throughout Germany, with one historian noting: "It split the [gay rights] movement irreparably, fed every prejudice against homosexuality, and provided new fodder for conservative adversaries of legal sex reform."

Film

 * The first film to draw inspiration from the Haarmann case, M, was released in 1931. Directed by Fritz Lang, M starred Peter Lorre as a fictional child killer named Hans Beckert. In addition to drawing inspiration from the case of Fritz Haarmann, M was also inspired by the then-recent and notorious crimes of Peter Kürten and Carl Großmann.
 * The film The Tenderness of the Wolves (Die Zärtlichkeit der Wölfe) was directly based upon Haarmann's crimes. This film was released in July 1973 and was directed by Ulli Lommel. The Tenderness of the Wolves was both written by and starred Kurt Raab, who cast himself as Fritz Haarmann. German film director Rainer Werner Fassbinder produced the film and also appeared in a minor role as Haarmann's criminal accomplice, Hugo Wittkowski.
 * The most recent film to be directly based upon Haarmann's murder spree, Der Totmacher (The Deathmaker), was released in 1995. This film starred Götz George as Haarmann. Der Totmacher focuses upon the written records of the psychiatric examinations of Haarmann conducted by Ernst Schultze; one of the main psychiatric experts who was to testify at Haarmann's 1924 trial. The plot of Der Totmacher revolves around Haarmann's interrogation after his arrest, as he is being interviewed by a court psychiatrist.
 * The 2010 film Cyrus: Mind of a Serial Killer, written and directed by Mark Vadik, was loosely based on both Haarmann and American serial killer Henry Lee Lucas.

Books

 * Cawthorne, Nigel; Tibballs, Geoffrey (1993) Killers: The Ruthless Exponents of Murder ISBN 0-7522-0850-0
 * Lane, Brian; Gregg, Wilfred (1992) The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers ISBN 978-0-747-23731-0
 * Lessing, Theodor (1925) Monsters of Weimar: Haarmann, the Story of a Werewolf ISBN 1-897743-10-6
 * Marriner, Brian (1992) Cannibalism: The Last Taboo! ISBN 1-859-58495-0
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon (2006) The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0

title: Fritz Haarmann


text:
Bob Geldof

Robert Frederick Zenon Geldof (born 5 October 1951) is an Irish singer-songwriter and political activist. He rose to prominence in the late 1970s as the lead singer of the Irish rock band the Boomtown Rats, who achieved popularity as part of the punk rock movement. The band had UK number one hits with his co-compositions "Rat Trap" and "I Don't Like Mondays". Geldof starred as Pink in Pink Floyd's 1982 film Pink Floyd – The Wall. As a fundraiser, Geldof organised the charity supergroup Band Aid and the concerts Live Aid and Live 8, and co-wrote "Do They Know It's Christmas?", one of the best-selling singles to date.

Geldof is widely recognised for his activism, especially his anti-poverty efforts concerning Africa. In 1984, he and Midge Ure founded the charity supergroup Band Aid to raise money for famine relief in Ethiopia. They went on to organise the charity super-concert Live Aid the following year and the Live 8 concerts in 2005. Geldof currently serves as an adviser to the ONE Campaign, co-founded by fellow Irish rock singer and activist Bono, and is a member of the Africa Progress Panel (APP), a group of ten distinguished individuals who advocate at the highest levels for equitable and sustainable development in Africa.

Geldof was granted an honorary knighthood (KBE) by Queen Elizabeth II in 1986 for his charity work in Africa: it is an honorary award as Geldof is an Irish citizen, but he is often referred to as 'Sir Bob'. He is a recipient of the Man of Peace title which recognises individuals who have made "an outstanding contribution to international social justice and peace", among numerous other awards and nominations. In 2005, he received the Brit Award for Outstanding Contribution to Music.

Early life
Geldof was born and brought up in Dún Laoghaire, Ireland, a son of Robert and Evelyn Geldof. His paternal grandfather, Zenon Geldof, was a Belgian immigrant and a hotel chef. His paternal grandmother, Amelia Falk, was a British Jew from London of German-Jewish descent. When Geldof was six years old, his mother Evelyn died at age 45 of a cerebral haemorrhage.

Geldof attended Blackrock College, where he was bullied for being a poor rugby player and for his middle name, Zenon. After working as a slaughterman, a road navvy and pea canner in Wisbech, England, he was hired as a music journalist in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, for The Georgia Straight. He briefly guest hosted the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation children's program Switchback.

The Boomtown Rats
Returning to Ireland in 1975, he became the lead singer of the Boomtown Rats, a rock group closely linked with the punk movement. In 1978, The Boomtown Rats had their first No. 1 single in the UK with "Rat Trap", the first new wave chart-topper in Britain. In 1979, they gained international attention with their second UK No. 1, "I Don't Like Mondays". This was both successful and controversial. Geldof had written it in the aftermath of Brenda Ann Spencer's attempted massacre at an elementary school in San Diego, California, in 1979. In 1980, The Boomtown Rats released the album Mondo Bongo.

Geldof became known as a colourful interview subject. The Boomtown Rats' first appearance on Ireland's The Late Late Show saw Geldof as deliberately brusque to host Gay Byrne and during his interview, he attacked Irish politicians and the Catholic Church, which he blamed for many of the country's problems. He responded to nuns in the audience who tried to shout him down by saying they had "an easy life with no material worries in return for which they gave themselves body and soul to the church". He also criticised Blackrock College. The interview caused uproar, making it impossible for The Boomtown Rats to play in Ireland again.

In January 2013, Geldof announced The Boomtown Rats would be reforming to play together for the first time since 1986 at that year's Isle of Wight Festival in June. They have subsequently announced further tour dates and released a new CD Back to Boomtown: Classic Rats Hits.

After the Boomtown Rats

Geldof left the Boomtown Rats in 1986 to launch a solo career and publish his autobiography, Is That It?, which was a UK best-seller.

His first solo records sold reasonably well and spawned the hit singles "This Is The World Calling" (co-written with Dave Stewart of Eurythmics) and "The Great Song of Indifference". He also occasionally performed with other artists, such as David Gilmour and Thin Lizzy; a performance of "Comfortably Numb" with Gilmour is documented in the DVD release David Gilmour in Concert (2002). In 1992, he performed at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert with the surviving members of Queen at the old Wembley Stadium, singing a song he jokingly claimed to have co-written with Mercury, called "Too Late God". (The song was actually co-written by Karl Hyde.)

Geldof has also worked as a DJ for XFM radio. In 1998, he erroneously announced Ian Dury's death from cancer, possibly due to hoax information from a listener who was disgruntled at the station's change of ownership. The event caused music paper NME (who had been involved in a running feud with Geldof since his Boomtown Rats days—primarily due to his disparagement of The Clash) to call Geldof 'the world's worst DJ'.

Along with U2's Bono, he has devoted much time since 2000 to campaigning for debt relief for developing countries. His commitments in this field, including the organisation of the Live 8 concerts, kept Geldof from producing any more musical output since 2001's album Sex, Age & Death.

In 2002, he was listed as one of the 100 Greatest Britons in a poll conducted among the general public, despite not being British.

After Live 8, Geldof returned to his career as a musician by releasing a box set containing all of his solo albums entitled Great Songs of Indifference – The Anthology 1986–2001 in late 2005. Following that release, Geldof toured, albeit with mixed success.

In July 2006, Geldof arrived at Milan's Arena Civica, a venue capable of holding 12,000 people, to play a scheduled concert to find that the organisers had not put the tickets on general sale and that only 45 people had shown up. Geldof refused to go on stage once he found out how small the attendance was. To offer some compensation for fans, Geldof stopped to sign autographs for those who had shown up. He then played a well-attended free Storytellers concert for MTV Italy in Naples, in October 2006.

Charity work
Geldof's first major charity involvement took place in September 1981 when he performed as a solo artist for Amnesty International's benefit show The Secret Policeman's Other Ball, held at Drury Lane theatre in London's West End. At the invitation of Amnesty show producer Martin Lewis, Geldof performed a solo version of "I Don't Like Mondays". Other rock artists had 'planted a seed' and appeared to have affected Geldof in a similar manner. Monty Python alumnus John Cleese conceived (and directed) the show, and on its impact on Geldof, Sting states "he took the 'Ball' and ran with it."

Band Aid
In 1984, Geldof responded to a BBC News report from Michael Buerk about the famine in Ethiopia by mobilising the pop world to do something about the images he had seen. With Midge Ure of Ultravox he wrote "Do They Know It's Christmas?" in order to raise funds. The song was recorded in a single day at Sarm West Studios in Notting Hill, London on 25 November 1984 by various artists performing under the name of Band Aid.

In its first week of release, the single became the UK's fastest-seller of all time, entering the UK Singles Chart at number one and staying there for five weeks, becoming the Christmas number one of 1984. It went on to sell over three million copies, making it the biggest-selling single in UK history up to that point, a title it held for almost 13 years. The single was also a major US hit, peaking at number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 and selling an estimated 2.5 million copies in the US by January 1985. The single would eventually sell 11.7 million copies worldwide.

New versions of "Do They Know It's Christmas?" were recorded in 1989 and 2004. In November 2014, Geldof announced that he would be forming a further incarnation of Band Aid, to be known as Band Aid 30, to record an updated version of the charity single, with the proceeds going to treat victims of the Ebola virus in West Africa.

Live Aid
As Geldof began to learn more about the situation, he discovered that one of the main reasons why African nations were in such dire peril was the obligation to make repayments on loans that their countries had taken from Western banks. For every pound donated in aid, ten times as much would have to leave the country in loan repayments. It became obvious that one song was not enough.

Geldof and Ure organised Live Aid, a huge event staged simultaneously on 13 July 1985 at the Wembley Stadium in London and John F. Kennedy Stadium in Philadelphia. Thanks to an unprecedented decision by the BBC to clear its schedules for 16 hours of rock music, the event was also broadcast live in the UK on television and radio.

It was one of the most monumental stage shows in history, with Phil Collins flying on Concorde so that he could play at both Wembley and Philadelphia on the same day.

During the broadcast of Live Aid, Geldof shocked viewers into giving cash by not only twice mouthing profanities but also by slamming his fist on the table and ordering them not to go out to the pub but to stay in and watch the show. Nearly seven hours into the concert in London, Geldof gave an infamous interview in which he used the word fuck. The BBC presenter David Hepworth, conducting the interview, had attempted to provide a list of addresses to which potential donations should be sent; Geldof interrupted him in mid-flow and shouted: "Fuck the address, let's get the [phone] numbers!" It has passed into folklore that he yelled at the audience, "Give us your fucking money!" although Geldof has stated that this phrase was never uttered. Due to his Irish accent, the profanity was stated to be misheard as "fock" and "focking" respectively. After the outburst, donations increased to £300 per second.

The harrowing video of dying, skeletal children—introduced by David Bowie following the end of his set—that had been made by CBC photo-journalists setting their films to the tune of "Drive" by The Cars, contributed to the concert's success.

In total, Live Aid raised over £150 million for famine relief. Geldof subsequently received an honorary knighthood, at age 34, for his efforts. His autobiography, written soon after with Paul Vallely, was entitled Is That It?. The book achieved further fame for being featured on the General Certificate of Secondary Education examination syllabus in a following year.

Much of the money raised by Live Aid went to NGOs in Ethiopia, some of which were under the influence or control of the Derg military junta. Some journalists have suggested that the Derg was able to use Live Aid and Oxfam money to fund its enforced resettlement and "villagification" programmes, under which at least 3 million people are said to have been displaced and between 50,000 and 100,000 killed. However, in November 2010 the BBC formally apologised to Geldof for misleading implications in its stories on the subject of Band Aid, saying it had 'no evidence' that Band Aid money specifically went to buy weapons.

Commission for Africa
In January 2004, on a visit to friends in Africa, Geldof came to believe that more people were at risk of starvation there than had died in the famine of 1984/85 which had prompted Live Aid. He telephoned the British Prime Minister Tony Blair from Addis Ababa. According to the Live 8 programme notes by Geldof's biographer and friend, Paul Vallely, the Prime Minister responded: "Calm down Bob. ... And come and see me as soon as you get back."

The result was the Commission for Africa. Blair invited Geldof and 16 other Commissioners, the majority from Africa and many of them politicians in power, to undertake a year-long study of Africa's problems. They came up with two conclusions: that Africa needed to change, to improve its governance and combat corruption, and that the rich world needed to support that change in new ways. That meant doubling aid, delivering debt cancellation, and reforming trade rules. The Commission drew up a detailed plan of how that could be done. It reported in March 2005. To force the issue Geldof decided to create a new international lobby for Africa with eight simultaneous concerts around the world to put pressure on the G8. He called it Live 8. The commission's recommendations later became the blueprint for the G8 Gleneagles African debt and aid package.

Africa Progress Panel
Geldof is a member of the Africa Progress Panel (APP), a group of ten distinguished individuals who advocate at the highest levels for equitable and sustainable development in Africa. Every year, the Panel releases a report, the Africa Progress Report, that outlines an issue of immediate importance to the continent and suggests a set of associated policies. In 2012, the Africa Progress Report highlighted issues of Jobs, Justice and Equity. The 2013 report outlined issues relating to oil, gas and mining in Africa.

DATA and One Campaign
Bob Geldof worked closely with DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa), an organisation founded by U2's Bono in 2002 to promote debt relief, third-world trade and AIDS relief in Africa. It merged with One Campaign in 2008, where Geldof also is very active. In June 2009, on behalf of One Campaign, he co-edited a special edition of the Italian newspaper La Stampa with a view on 35th G8 summit.

Live 8 concerts
On 31 March 2005, Geldof and Ure announced the Live 8 project, to raise awareness of issues that burden Africa, including government debt, trade barriers, hunger, and AIDS issues. Geldof organised ten concerts on 2 July 2005 in large cities throughout the industrialised world. They featured musicians from different genres and locations around the world. The cities where Live 8 concerts were played were in industrialised countries, and drew huge crowds. The locations were London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Philadelphia, Barrie, Chiba, Johannesburg, Moscow, Cornwall and Edinburgh.

The concerts were free, and were scheduled just days before world leaders gathered in Gleneagles, for the G8 economic summit, on 6 July. Ure organised the 'final push' Live 8 concert at Edinburgh. 'The boys and girls with guitars will finally get to turn the world on its axis,' Geldof said in a statement. Pink Floyd's performance in London was their first since 1981 to include original vocalist/bassist, Roger Waters.

Night for Ukraine benefit
Geldof performed his rendition of Nick Lowe's "(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding" at Night for Ukraine, a fundraising benefit held at the Roundhouse in north London on the evening of March 9, 2022, with the funds raised being donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, to provide aid to people fleeing Ukraine following the Russian invasion. The event was organized by Fabien Riggall in collaboration with the Ukrainian pop duo Bloom Twins.

Criticism of his charity work
Although part of the campaign "Make Poverty History" (MPH), Live 8 was accused by John Hilary, then a senior executive of the campaign, of hijacking MPH by planning its concerts on the same day as the march in Edinburgh, which was said to be the biggest social justice march in Scottish history.

Geldof was also criticised for the lack of African acts performing at Live 8. Geldof responded that only the biggest-selling artists would attract the huge audience required to capture the attention of the world in the run-up to the G8 meeting. In the lead-up to the G8 summit, Geldof, who had been a member of Tony Blair's Commission for Africa on which the Gleneagles recommendations were largely based, labelled Kumi Naidoo's criticism of the summit "a disgrace". Some leading African campaigners have asked Geldof to stand down from the global anti-poverty movement, and the New Internationalist (between January and February 2006) said 'It would be long overdue if he did.'

There were also accusations that Live 8 gave unqualified support to the personal and political agendas of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, particularly in the lead-up to an election. Though many felt that it was the British politicians who had accepted Geldof's agenda, rather than the other way round, this led to accusations that Geldof had compromised his cause.

The promises made for Africa at the Gleneagles summit were widely praised: "the greatest summit for Africa ever" (Kofi Annan), "an important, if incomplete, boost to the development prospects of the poorest countries" economist (Jeffrey Sachs) or "a major breakthrough on debt" (Kevin Wakins, former head of research at Oxfam). But many aid agencies pronounced their disappointment with the outcome, feeling that the strict conditions imposed on African countries for accepting debt relief left them little better off than before. The New Internationalist scathingly stated, since becoming prominent in the salvation of Africa, "Geldof has re-released the entire back catalogue of the Boomtown Rats."

Oasis guitarist Noel Gallagher became one of the more vocal sceptics about the impact of Live 8, citing his belief that rock stars have less influence over world leaders than popular culture may believe. His explanation was: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but are they hoping that one of these guys from the G8 is on a quick 15-minute break at Gleneagles and sees Annie Lennox singing 'Sweet Dreams' and thinks, 'Fuck me, she might have a point there, you know?' And Keane doing 'Somewhere Only We Know' and some Japanese businessman going, 'Aw, look at him. ... we should really fucking drop that debt, you know.' It's not going to happen, is it?"

Controversies
Geldof swore on the music television programme CD:UK, saying "Fuck the tape" while concluding his chat with Cat Deeley. At the NME awards in 2006, when accepting an award, Geldof referred to the host Russell Brand as a "cunt". Brand responded by saying "It's no wonder Bob Geldof knows so much about famine – he's been dining out on 'I Don't Like Mondays' for 30 years". Then, in mid-July 2006, he infuriated many New Zealanders by criticising the New Zealand government's foreign aid contribution as "shameful" and "pathetic". Winston Peters, the Minister of Foreign Affairs responded that Geldof failed to recognise the "quality" of New Zealand aid as well as other New Zealand contributions.

During mid-November 2008, a local for-profit organisation, Diversity@Work, invited Geldof to Melbourne, to speak about Third World poverty and the failure of governments to combat the crisis. It was later revealed that he was paid $100,000 for his speech, which included a luxury hotel room and first-class airfares.

AIDS 2014 Conference
During a special session at the XX International AIDS Conference, 2014, Geldof referred to sex workers as "hookers", for which he was subsequently criticised. Christian Vega, a sex workers' rights activist and a member of Victoria's peer-only Victorian Sex Industry Network (VIXEN), criticised speakers including Geldof for their use of pejorative language; Vega contended that this language perpetuated stigmas that are among the key barriers to HIV prevention. Geldof responded to the criticism during the closing session of the conference: "I read today in the paper that my talk yesterday was littered with profanities – fuck them." In Geldof's view, rights-based language hampered HIV prevention, and he defended using terms such as "hookers" and "junkies": "Let's not get distracted by diversionary language. Let's call it as it is". In a radio show after the conference on Joy 94.9, Vega dismissed Geldof's view that rights-based language was a waste of time as "ridiculous". In Vega's view, this language served as an important tool to challenge stigma and discrimination, particularly within an HIV context.

Freedom of Dublin and Easter Rising comments
In 2016, when Ireland was marking the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising, Geldof caused controversy when he likened the rebel leaders to Islamist suicide bombers. The uprising in Dublin against British rule was a key event that led to Irish independence. Geldof called it the "original sin" of the Irish state.

The following year, Geldof returned his Freedom of Dublin award in protest at Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi holding the same honour. He said he does not want to be associated "with an individual currently engaged in the mass ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people". He added that if Suu Kyi "is stripped of her Dublin Freedom, perhaps the council would see fit to restore to me that which I take such pride in". The Lord Mayor of Dublin, Mícheál Mac Donncha, accused Geldof of hypocrisy, saying "I find it ironic that he makes this gesture while proudly retaining his title as Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, given the shameful record of British imperialism".

One month later, Dublin City Council voted to revoke the Freedom of the City from both Suu Kyi and Geldof, with several councillors saying Geldof had "insulted" Dublin. Geldof was furious at the decision to revoke his award, calling it a "Sinn Féin stitch-up" because of his Easter Rising comments.

Mauritius Leaks
After being criticised earlier in the decade for his stance on aid to African countries, in July 2019, according to a report on its "Mauritius Leaks" project by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), Bob Geldof was mentioned as allegedly involved in tax avoidance by corporations and individuals doing business in Africa and other continents. His private equity fund 8 Miles (named after the shortest distance between Europe and Africa: the eight miles width of the Strait of Gibraltar), which aimed to generate a 20 per cent return by exclusively buying stakes in African startup businesses, had set up subsidiaries in the tax haven of Mauritius, "an offshore jurisdiction with a wide network of double taxation treaties in interesting markets". Geldof declined to comment on the leaks.

Businessman
By 1992, Geldof had established himself as a businessman through co-ownership of the TV production company Planet 24, which made early-morning Channel 4 show The Big Breakfast. Planet 24 was sold to Carlton TV in 1999. TV production company Ten Alps was founded the next day by Geldof and business partner Alex Connock. In April 2011, a new entertainment-formats company, Pretend, was launched.

The Dictionary of Man, announced by Geldof in 2007, is a project he started with director John Maguire, and is financed by the BBC. It was planned that the collected material would be displayed on a website, and be available for distribution through DVDs, books, magazines, CDs, and exhibitions. Geldof reportedly had been planning it since he visited Niger in the 1980s and became aware of the number of native languages becoming lost forever as native speakers died.

, he served a term as patron of the Exeter Entrepreneurs' Society at the University of Exeter.

Geldof is chairman of 8 Miles, a private equity firm active in Africa.

Groupcall
In 2002, he became a founding partner of Groupcall, which specialises in providing communication software and data extraction tools to the education, public and business sectors. His initial involvement arose from concerns for his children's safety.

Politics
In 2002, Geldof appeared in an advertisement opposing the possibility of the United Kingdom joining the single EU currency, saying it was "not anti-European to be against the euro". He also criticised the European Union in 2004 for what he called its "pathetic" response to Ethiopia's food crisis. MEP Glenys Kinnock responded that Geldof's comments were "unhelpful and misinformed".

In 2003, during a visit to Ethiopia, Geldof praised U.S. President George W. Bush's proposal to fight AIDS in Africa.

In December 2005, Geldof agreed to give advice on global poverty to the Conservative Party. He stated, however, that he was uninterested in party politics: "I've said I'll shake hands with the devil on my left and the devil on my right to get to where we need to be."

Geldof was a vocal supporter of the unsuccessful campaign for the UK to vote "Remain" in the 2016 referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. Shortly before the vote, in what was described as the "most surreal day in British politics ever", Geldof led a flotilla on the River Thames to attack an opposition flotilla led by Eurosceptic politician Nigel Farage. Later that year, Geldof campaigned for the Liberal Democrat candidate Sarah Olney at the Richmond Park by-election. He described Brexit as "the greatest act of national self-harm" in British history and vowed to "undermine" Theresa May every step of the way. He said the EU was "a mess" but warned Britain's young people had their futures "taken from them" as a result of the referendum.

Ahead of the 2024 United Kingdom general election Geldof posted a video endorsing the re-election of Conservative candidate and Minister of State for Development and Africa Andrew Mitchell.

Fathers' rights
From January 2002 until sometime in 2005, Geldof listened very closely to Father's Rights campaigners, and it was reported that he had sacks of mail arriving at his door on a daily basis from fathers who were unhappy with the British family courts. He said, "I am heartbroken. I just cannot believe what happens to people, what is done to them in the name of the law. You only have to open your eyes to see what I call the 'Sad Dads on Sundays Syndrome'". He has also called for The Children Act to be repealed and his latest statement to Father's Rights campaigners was, "It's not in my nature to shut up".

Population
In March 2012, Geldof expressed concern about rising population and falling water levels in Arab countries. He also predicted famine, plague, and wars if the population did not stabilise. Geldof asked countries to lower their birth rates to lessen the burden on the environment. "We must see the possibility of life, not just to individual children, but to the human species," he said "And I'm not that optimistic."

Awards and honours

Geldof has received many awards for his fund-raising work including being invested by Elizabeth II as an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1986. Geldof is entitled to use the post-nominal letters "KBE" but not to be styled "Sir", as he is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm; nevertheless the nickname "Sir Bob" has stuck and media reports continue to refer to him as "Sir Bob Geldof".

In 1985, he was made a Grand Officer of the Order of the Two Niles by president Abdel Rahman Swar al-Dahab. In 1986 Geldof was made a Freeman of the Borough of Swale, in north Kent, England. Geldof had for some years been resident in the borough, at Davington Priory, Faversham, and was still living there. He received his award during a special meeting of the Swale Borough Council from the mayor, Councillor Richard Moreton, and the mayoress, Rose Moreton.

In 2004, Geldof was made a development chief in Ghana. This subsequently led to some controversy, as a number of people have since questioned why he hardly ever returns to Ajumako-Bisease (the village that ennobled him) anymore.

In 2006 the New Statesman magazine conducted a survey of their readers to find the Heroes of our Time, Geldof was voted third behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela.

Other awards

 * 2005: received a Man of Peace Award.
 * 2006: awarded the medal of Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.
 * 2006: awarded the Freedom of Dublin City for his humanitarian work. In 2017, Geldof returned the award in a protest at Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi holding the same honour. Dublin City Council voted to revoke both Suu Kyi's and Geldof's awards.
 * 2010: awarded Hon. Master of Arts degree from the University for the Creative Arts.
 * 2013: awarded the Freedom of the City of London.
 * 2014: awarded with BASCA Gold Badge Award in recognition of his unique contribution to the field of music production.

Personal life

Geldof's longtime girlfriend and first wife was Paula Yates. Yates was a rock journalist, and later became the presenter of the music show The Tube which ran from 1982 to 1987. She was known for her in-bed interviews on the show The Big Breakfast from 1992. Geldof met Yates when she became an obsessed fan of The Boomtown Rats during the band's early days. They became a couple in 1976 when Yates flew to Paris to surprise him when the band was playing there.

Before they were married, the couple had their first daughter, Fifi Trixibelle Geldof, born 31 March 1983. She was named Fifi after Bob's aunt Fifi and Trixibelle because Yates wanted a 'belle' in the family.

After 10 years together, Geldof and Yates married in June 1986 in Las Vegas, with Simon Le Bon (of Duran Duran) acting as Geldof's best man. The couple later had two more daughters, Peaches Honeyblossom Geldof (known as Peaches Geldof) on 13 March 1989, and Little Pixie Geldof (known as Pixie Geldof) on 17 September 1990. Pixie is said to be named after a celebrity daughter character from the cartoon Celeb in the satirical magazine Private Eye, itself a lampoon of the names the Geldofs gave to their other children.

In February 1995, Yates left Geldof for Michael Hutchence, the lead singer of Australian band INXS. Yates had first met Hutchence in 1985 when she interviewed him on The Tube. Geldof and Yates divorced in May 1996. Yates and Hutchence had a daughter, Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence (known as Tiger), in July 1996.

Hutchence died by suicide in a Sydney hotel room on 22 November 1997. After Hutchence's death, Geldof and Yates each gave police statements on the phone calls they exchanged with Hutchence that morning but did not volunteer their phone records. Yates' statement on 26 November included "He was frightened and couldn't stand a minute more without his baby ... [he] was terribly upset and he said, 'I don't know how I'll live without seeing Tiger. Yates contended that Geldof had repeatedly said, "Don't forget, I am above the law," referring to his influence since Live Aid. Geldof's police statements and evidence to the coroner indicated that he patiently listened to Hutchence who was "hectoring and abusive and threatening." A friend of Yates and Geldof confirmed the substance of this call and added that Geldof had said, "I know what time the call ended, it was 20 to 7, I was going to log it as a threatening call." The occupant in the hotel room next to Hutchence's heard a loud male voice and swearing at about 5:00 a.m. The coroner was satisfied that this voice was Hutchence arguing with Geldof.

Geldof later went to court and obtained full custody of his three children. He has since become an outspoken advocate of fathers' rights. After Yates' death from a heroin overdose in 2000, Geldof became the legal guardian of Tiger Hutchence and later adopted her in 2007. As of 2019, Tiger's legal name is Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence Geldof.

In April 2014, his daughter Peaches died at the age of 25, of a heroin overdose. Geldof stated the family was "beyond pain" after he confirmed the news of her death.

Geldof announced his engagement to French actress Jeanne Marine, his partner of 18 years, on 1 May 2014, and they were married in France on 28 April 2015. They currently reside in Battersea, South London.

Regarding his Jewish ancestry, in an interview with the Manchester-based Jewish Telegraph, Geldof said "I was a quarter Catholic, a quarter Protestant, a quarter Jewish and a quarter nothing – the nothing won."

According to The Sunday Times Rich List, Geldof was worth £32 million in 2012.

Singles

 * Table Notes
 * A^ "This Is the World Calling" also charted at No. 23 on Billboard Mainstream Rock Tracks Chart.
 * B^ "Love or Something" charted at No. 24 on Billboard Modern Rock Tracks Chart.

Film appearances

 * Pink Floyd – The Wall (1982) – Pink
 * Number One (1985) – Harry 'Flash' Gordon
 * Bernard and the Genie (1991 film) – as Himself (cameo)
 * Spiceworld (1997) – as himself (cameo)
 * Being Mick (2001) – as himself
 * I am Bob (short film 2007) – in which he loses a lookalike contest (even after singing the Boomtown Rats' hit "I Don't Like Mondays".)
 * Oh My God (2009) – as himself
 * Bad Girl (2012) – as George

In literature
In the story "Le jour du jugement dernier", from the collection "Les Mémoires de Satan", by Pierre Cormon, God tries to judge Bob Geldof but doesn't succeed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bob Geldof


text:
Talk:100 BC

1

 * 100 BC - Indus valley civilization - series of raids or small scale migrations by the Aryans from the North-West of Indian Sub-continent.

"I am almost positive that any invasian of the Indus Valley Civilization occurred at least a thousand years before this. I have heard 1800 BC as a good date." User:206.61.178.50

Any opinions on this? This should go to IVC if there is no reply here. Mr. Jones 17:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

101 BC
100 BC 96.225.134.128 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles
There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:100 BC


text:
Talk:Number system

Untitled
Have you any reference justifying that "number system" does mean "set of numbers"? — MFH: Talk 19:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First 10 hits for "number system" in Google are to what here is called Numeral systems. The 11th,, agrees with this article on the meaning. MathWorld disagrees with this article. - I have modified the article to allow both meanings, but a more radical change may be appropriate.--Niels Ø 20:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * This article does not make a great deal of sense. If this were a mathematical term, it would have a rigorous mathematical definition, but the article doesn't mention one. It even goes on to say that "Whether the quaternions should be considered a number system is a matter of convention." which even seems to imply that there isn't a formal definition at all. At first I thought it might be talking about a ring or a field, both of which are sets and have something to do with arithmetic operations. — Furthermore, I think that most people think of things like binary when they hear "number system". I therefore think numeral system should be moved to here. — Timwi 21:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Michael Hardy's recent changes, including the top matter
 * This article is not about numeral systems, which are systems of symbols for representing numbers.
 * seems to me again to obscure the point I tried to make clear: The most common meaning of "number system" is the one covered in the article Numeral system. Michael, I agree that something in italics before the article proper is the best solution, but I'm not keen on this wording. I'm not sure how to rephrase it, though. Other solutions could include a disambiguation page, or completely abandoning the rare meaning of "number system" covered here, redirecting to Numeral system. Can someone see a good solution?--Niels Ø 12:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to see numeral system moved here because this is by far the more common name for it. Then that article can have something on the top saying mathematicians also use the term "number system" to refer to sets on which arithmetic operations can be performed. For example, refer to ring and field. — Timwi 15:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I absolutely agree!--Niels Ø 18:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

conversion from one number to another
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.143.2 (talk • contribs) 03:38, February 3, 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, you need to explain a little more. Do you want Numeral system? --AySz88 ^  -  ^  21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Natural numbers

 * 1) Zero should not be considered a natural number without some very serious explanations. Counting to three is saying "one, two, three", not "zero, one, two".
 * 2) The notation a' as an alternative to S(a) is not used and should be omitted.
 * 3) The definition "a*b = a + a + ... + a (b times)" in not the style of Peano. Use a·1=a, a·(b+1)=(a·b)+a.
 * 4) Use · rather than * for multiplication.
 * 5) The cancellation rule "x+a=y+a implies x=y" should be given.

The arithmetic characterization:
 * 1) if A and B are natural numbers, then so is A+B.
 * 2) if A and B are natural numbers, then so is AB.
 * 3) 1 is a natural number.

Generalizes to the similar characterization of polynomials:
 * 1) if A and B are polynomials, then so is A+B.
 * 2) if A and B are polynomials, then so is AB.
 * 3) 1 is a polynomial.
 * 4) X is a polynomial.

Then the short path of explanation is: natural number → polynomial → integer → algebraic number. Bo Jacoby 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Ad 1: I teach math in International Baccalaureate and in the Danish high school system. In the Danish system (where I myself was educated), 0 is not a natural number. When I realised that IB required me to teach that 0 is a natural number (a member of N), I disliked it, and so I searched for ammunition on the internet in support of my own view. Alas, it turned out that serious as well as popular sources are divided roughly evenly on the matter. Wikipedia should not tell people how we think things ought to be, but how they actually are. In this case, we simply have to state that both views are common. - By the way, I think the Greeks believed counting started with two: One represents unity; proper numbers represent plurality.
 * Ad 4: I prefer · for multiplication myself, and * is definitely not a good choice. However, × would be an acceptable choice too.
 * Apart from that, I think you could just go ahead and make the changes you want.--Niels Ø 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see so much discussion here.
This article was a stub when I got to it. I've tried to expand it into something useful, and am glad for all the help I can get. To explain a few points.

Wikipedia already has major articles number and numeral. It also has a good article on abstract algebra and separate articles on group, ring, and field.

Someone had tried to put into the article on number a long section on the construction of the various systems of numbers. That got reverted, and did not really belong under number, and so I suggested moving it here.

Which got me started working on this article.

A couple of replies to the posts above.

Mathematicians distinguish between numbers and numerals. The google hits for "number system" are mostly "numeral systems", but we don't want to make that mistake.

This answers the question about changing from one "form" of a number to another. The mathematical properties of a "number system" are independent of how the numbers are written. Which is why we need to be sure operations are well defined. That is, we need to be sure they depend on the number itself, not on the numeral or other symbol used to express the number.

As for 0 being an element of the natural numbers -- I don't like it, either. But that's the way Peano defined it. Rick Norwood 20:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Bo Jacoby.

 * The notation a' as an alternative to S(a) is not used and should be omitted.
 * The notation is here because it is in the article on Peano's Axioms. It should be in either both places or neither.

 * The definition "a*b = a + a + ... + a (b times)" in not the style of Peano. Use a·1=a, a·(b+1)=(a·b)+a.

 * This is a fairly low level article, and except for using the Peano axioms as a starting point does not claim to follow Peano. It seems to me that the first definition is easier for the layperson to understand.

 * Use · rather than * for multiplication.

 * The new multiplication sign is *. Get used to it -- I have.  The sign you suggest: ·  is both hard to see and not in universal use.

 * The cancellation rule "x+a=y+a implies x=y" should be given.

 * Proving all the properties of the various systems is beyond the scope of this article. For the cancellation rule, see group.

Thanks for your suggestions. I've offered my responses, but am always happy to go along with a consensus. Rick Norwood 20:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Rick Norwood:

 * As for 0 being an element of the natural numbers -- I don't like it, either. But that's the way Peano defined it.

 * Peano's axioms work just as well with 1 substituted for 0. Or 2 substituted for zero.  I like natural numbers to have zero, but the convention of starting with 1 is widely used and not to be ignored.

 * Use · rather than * for multiplication.

 * The new multiplication sign is *. Get used to it -- I have. The sign you suggest: · is both hard to see and not in universal use.

 * "X is the new Y" is the new "I like Y and people like X have to change to Y because I say it's new"--not a terribly persuasive approach. Asterisk is no more "the new multiplication sign" than &middot;.  Asterisk is ambiguous (look for the footnote) and also not in universal use--not even in programming languages, for which it was invented.  The only acceptable choices I see are "·" (&middot;), "×" (&times;, duh), and "" (concatenation).

 * Thank goodness there's no one agitating for changing all the "^"s to "**".

I think Knuth or Tarjan has an article online about extensions of the sequence "+", "×", "^", ...; there is probably even such an article online. To cite the article by Rick Norwood in Mathematics Magazine goes close to the edge of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'm not too happy about those policies, either, but the alternative is worse.

Please understand that I appreciate your additions to this article very much, and these three issues are the only ones I disagree strongly with. I didn't notice the &middot; controversy until I had completely &middot;ified the article. And I'll have to at least footnote the 0 vs. 1 controversy. As for the citation issue, I'll try to find the article I recall if no one else does. --Dan 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was a little embarassed about quoting myself -- but I think the ban against original research means no original research appearing in Wikipedia for the first time. I don't think it is intended to prohibit quoting research a Wikipedian published in a reputable journal a long time ago. What sense would that make? On the other hand, I could be wrong. Rick Norwood 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either just what is intended, though the sense it would make is that Wikipedians would be distanced from personal involvement in the choice of references they cite. Thats why I suggested both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I've solved the problem here by replacing your citation with a link to the article on Tetration, which discusses the topic in detail, online. If you think a citation to your article will improve that article, I believe you should take it up there. But if there are enough references there, you might save yourself the embarassment or controversy. --Dan Hoey 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because I ended up here while trying to figure out the situation on quoting yourself, the answer is here: WP:NOR. Quoting yourself is fine. —Darxus (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Counting Numbers
I was always taught that there is a subset of Natural Numbers called "Counting Numbers" which consists of 1, 2, 3, 4, ect to infinity (positive integers), while a Natural Number is the same, but includes 0. Has this been changed or what? I have some references some where, most notably a college level mathbook from 2002 or something. Can someone explain this more in depth and/or why there was a change or mistake? 76.116.109.221 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Most people will agree about the terms "counting number" (1, 2, 3, 4, ...) and "whole number" (0, 1, 2, 3, ...). It is a religious issue whether the natural numbers are the same as counting numbers or the same as whole numbers.  Generally, number theorists side with the former, and set theorists side with the latter. Michael Slone (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of sets
Can we have some orderings of the number systems on the page? Or a tree?

Natural numbers in Integers in Rational numbers in Constructible numbers in Algebraic numbers in Computable numbers in Real numbers in Complex numbers, for example. --Raijinili (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exsistance of this article?
I'm not quite sure what this adds over Number, natural numbers and other articles on specific systems and more technical articles like Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers. It seems to be largely a duplication of material which increases the editing and maintance work. Perhaphs a redirect to Number would be appropriate. --Salix alba 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaussian integer
Should Gaussian integer be added as a type of Number system? This would entail adding it to the number system box at the bottom of this (and all the other number system) articles, so I feel the need to get consensus before making such a change myself. Thanks in advance for any opinions on this question!—GraemeMcRaetalk 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What qualifies as a number system? And what is the point of this article?
I don't think "number system" is a coherent mathematical idea. As far as I can gather from the ones listed, an algebraic object is a number system if and only if it either has "numbers" in its name or is a real normed division algebra. What's so special about things satisfying these unnatural-looking criteria that they get an article all to themselves? An article entitled "List of people whose name contains more than four occurrences of the letter 'e'" would be equally useful.Saulglasman (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Oddly tempted to create said list...Clifsportland (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Sections.
There is a section heading titled “Logical construction of number systems” that does not seem to be described by its subsections. Is this an old heading of a section that has been removed? If so, the sections should be renamed accordingly. Clifsportland (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Number system