Talk:Adolf Eichmann/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed merge with Little Eichmanns

"Little Eichmann", as a phrase or idea, is more about Eichmann's cultural legacy than about the etymology of the phrase "little Eichmanns". If the latter is of any consequence, it can be covered in Ward Churchill's article, but doesn't need its own page. Everything important that is said in Little Eichmanns is already (or can be) covered more concisely at Adolf Eichmann#Impact. (See Talk:Little_Eichmanns#Redirect.) Seeking consensus to redirect/merge. czar 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Little Eichmanns, material will be lost here, and would simply clutter this article. A link is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  As mentioned, it's already linked. The question is whether the concept is independently notable based on the listed sources and to what extent it needs further coverage in the Eichmann legacy section. If it doesn't, a redirect would be sufficient. czar 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it is independently notable, and no, that is not the only question at hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I really can't see how we would shoehorn it into the legacy section. That is already a well-crafted section. The Little Eichmanns article should stand or fall on it's own merits. Personally I think it is not substantial enough for a stand alone article, and would not fit into a proposed merge here. It's a misfit. I agree that a link would suffice. Simon Adler (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is already a GA article. If the content was in the article at the time of a GA review, the reviewer would quite likely request its removal as being off-topic and trivial. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - link to article is best way to handle the matter; as stated it would just clutter this GA article; whether the Little Eichmanns is notable enough for a stand alone article is another question. Kierzek (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - No real reason to do that and, like Simon Adler said, it would really just clutter up the article. Should stay in the See Also section. JulkaK (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (Manual re-signature, forgot it again...)
• "whether the Little Eichmanns is notable enough for a stand alone article" is literally the point of this discussion, @Kierzek. No one is requiring further content to be merged into this biographical article, @Simon Adler, Diannaa, and JulkaK, but the point of this discussion is to determine whether the neologism has enough sourcing to stand on its own or whether it should redirect to its most prominent mention, which would be in Adolf Eichmann#Impact.

  Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
  — WP:NEO

  This is exactly the case with "Little Eichmanns" as currently sourced, yet BMK contends that it is independently notable. czar 13:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and No — I've long thought that Little Eichmanns is not worthy of an independent article and that most of what is there could disappear from the encyclopedia altogether without being missed. However, the concept and its usage are not totally non-notable so a mention here is appropriate. The current single sentence could be expanded to two, or three as an outside possibility, to cover the topic sufficiently. The problem is that this option should be combined with deletion of the other article, which is likely to prove difficult. Zero^talk 01:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mangled quote

Seriously, Beyond My Ken, it's beyond obnoxious when you revert me every time I try to fix one of these articles. It turns out it's not even an Eichmann quote, but, according to Shirer, a quote of "one of his henchman". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Curly Turkey, I don't know WTF you're talking about. I revert when, in my evaluation, things need to be reverted, not on the basis of who made the edit -- with the exception of banned editors, which you are not. If you think you have a case for me following you, I suggest you file a report at ANI for WP:HARASSMENT, but, if I were you, I'd be prepared to be dissatisfied with the result.

That you've straightened out the provenance of the quote is good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In the future I hope you'll take the time to figure out what was wrong (and maybe even fix it) without aggressively reverting with a snarky "please read the quote again"—which I obviously had. We can avoid these conflicts in the future if you do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that'll be good, if you'll avoid WP:Casting aspersions about my behavior and intentions and instead WP:AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It would have been entirely in character for Eichmann to have said these words. However, it should be noted that the only witness was the Nazi turd Dieter Wisliceny, who was frantically telling everyone at the Nuremberg trials what he thought they wanted to hear in an unsuccessful attempt to save himself from the gallows. Personally I would leave it out, but if it is included it must be as Wisliceny's claim and not as a fact. Zero^talk 02:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to judge—my concern was with how botched the quote's inclusion was. If you think it should go, take it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Article contradicting itself

The fourth paragraph of the article starts with "After Germany's defeat in 1945, Eichmann fled to Austria. He lived there until 1950", however in section 4 "After the Second World War", the first paragraph, this is displayed completely different, with him relocating often between different places before settling down and maybe moving one more time, but all named places being in Germany and not even close to Austria. FriedrichKieferer (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"After" doesn't necessarily mean "immediately after"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, he's right there's no mention of Austria at all in the 4th section, which says that he lived in a small village in Germany until 1950. They both cannot be right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed I'd have to do some research, but I think that he passed through Austria on his way to Genoa to sail to Argentina. If that's so. it was a minor thing. The town in Lower Saxony was the place he settled in for the longest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the phrase "ended up" suggests that's where he ended his days. Far from it, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, idiomatically, it simply indicates where the end of that journey was: "I took off in my car, and ended up in Teaneck, New Jersey" doesn't imply that I then lived and died there, it says that it was the end of my trip in the car. There's nothing confusing about it, any more than there's anything confusing about "He was captured by the US". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's your view. I also think "he ended up" is bit too informal. So we'll just have to agree to disagree about those two phrases. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The German wikipedia artice definitely supports the locations in norther Germany, the story is even given in more detail. Also according to one of the sources given there (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=historyfacpub) he stayed in Germany until spring 1950, and afterwards he went to South Tyrol via Austria. FriedrichKieferer (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image size

I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

His ranks

Its been a while since I have been to this article about three years. There used to be a summary of Eichmann's SS ranks taken from his record at the National Archives. It looks like they were cut for some reason. Here is a copy of an old page that had them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Eichmann&oldid=860776202#Dates_of_rank. Would be nice to have this on the page as they are used for reference for people writing books about this man. Can we put this back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.11 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't re-add it, as the person who added it was later blocked for adding fake stuff. So we have no way of knowing if the material was genuine or not, since no citations were provided. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Dianaa's objection, I'll note that records in the National Archives are not necessarily reliable. I noted above two such documents that got his name wrong. It is much better to find a good secondary source. Zero^talk 09:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I didnt know if had to be in a book first to be in the article. Archives has a list of some SS officers ranks but it is a reference folder they keep in their research room and not an actual book. The only other book I have that talks a lot about SS ranks is here https://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Black-History-Organization-Personnel/dp/0692138862 but it doesn't have lists of all of Eichmann's ranks which is why I came here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.11 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Operation Reinhard deportations

Article states, "Under Eichmann's supervision, large-scale deportations began almost immediately to extermination camps at Bełżec, Sobibor, Treblinka and elsewhere."

Wasn't that Hermann Hofle's responsibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit0r6781 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation

Someone added a sound file. I have two problems with it. First, it says "Adolf Otto Eichmann" but his name was "Otto Adolf Eichmann". Second, I question the way that "Eichmann" is pronounced, though I can't provide proof at the moment. There are two possibilities for "ch" that are within range: (1) a hard k-like sound as in Bach, (2) a soft sound not far from English "sh". The sound file uses (2), but I'm 90% sure that (1) is correct. dictionary.com has what I mean. Somewhere there is a recording of him speaking his own name, but I can't find it at the moment. The Hebrew wiki has the Hebrew spelling for version (1) but the same dubious sound file. The German wiki doesn't have a pronunciation guide. Zero^talk 03:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As for the first point, there appears to have been, and probably still is among historians, some confusion as to Eichmann's given name (merely as to the order of his given names - Adolf Otto, or Otto Adolf). I believe they've had trouble locating any birth records, and relied merely on his testimony at trial, could be wrong though. Eichmann is a primary source with regards to his own name, and we're not supposed to use primary sources as references on Wikipedia. As to the second point, I find it difficult to believe that a native German speaker would not get the pronunciation down pat, but it's possible that it's wrong. In any event, it would seem that a new pronunciation by someone who is both a native German speaker and a professional historian would be for the best, but good luck getting that here. - 2602:306:C478:5C90:18DA:212:3655:8320 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from your own reference, in the English phonetic ahykh- , the second h draws it out to an approximate aix type of sound (which you can see as a suggestion in English on this article). So, really, there appears to be nothing wrong with the pronunciation. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As a native German, I can confirm this. The name comes from the word "Eiche" (oak) and is pronounced the same way: Eye-sh-mon. The other ch sound is only used after a, o, and u, never after e or i. (Except maybe by the Northern Swiss and some of their immediate neighbors, who use that sound a lot.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As this is English Wikipedia, our concern should be what the pronunciation of the name in English is, and it's clearly "Ike-man". The pronuciation in German is a matter for German Wikipedia, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A person's name is supposed to be pronounced in the language they speak/language of their name, which happens to not be English here. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Names are mispronounced all the time when they get transferred from one language to another, because each language has a different set of sounds and pronunciation conventions which are normal to it. I was in Paris recently, and the pronunciation of "Roosevelt" in the name of a Metro stop was distinctly different from the American pronunciation. That didn't make it "wrong", it made it the accepted French pronunciation of that name. In this case, I defy anyone to find any recorded English-language reliable source which pronounces "Eichmann" as anything other than "Ikeman". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

See this, this, this, this, this, this,this ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone'd better raise a ruckus at the Albert Einstein article, then!

But seriously, folks, there're problems with providing an "English" pronunciation:

• It's presumptive to assume the user is clicking on the pronuciation file to hear the (an) "English" pronuciation.
• Foreign names often have multiple "English" pronunciations:
  • Gogh is pronounced differently in Britain and North America
  • some pronounce Bach with a "k" sound, but where I grew up, it was pronounced with a gutteral "ch" (yes, in English, and, no, this is not uncommon)
  • tsunami is typically pronounced with the "t" silent in English, but non-silent "t" pronunciation have become increasingly common, and more dictionaries are reflecting this (but not our article!—got some work to do ...).
• Many will want to know about the pronunciation those such as Gabriel Bach uses, which is neither a "k" nor a gutteral.
• I know plenty of English speakers who pronounce names like "Eichmann" with a guttural (though not with the Standard German /ç/).

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there some doubt that the English pronunciation of "Einstein" is "Eyn-styn"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there some doubt that Beyond My Ken will volunteer himself to raise the ruckus over the pronunciation audio file at Albert Einstein? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Gee, Curly Turkey, don't you have anything better to do with your time? Isn't there a Wikipedia article to improve or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean, like the bcachefs article I just created? Or any of the other 20,000+ article-space edits I've made so far this year? Don't make a joke of yourself, BYK—I presented legitimate concerns re: your "keep it English" comment, and this nauseous bullshit is your rebuttal? Try responding with something on-topic, hmm? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant "nauseating" not "nauseous". People get nauseous, things which create nausea in people are "nauseating". Don't worry, it's a common error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the only thing anyone might be "worried" about is whether you'll make a relevant, on-topic contribution to the discussion, rather than lame snipes. Someone made a good-faith contribution to the article with the audio file. I've provided reasons to consider keeping it—your every comment since has been designed to draw attention away from them. That's an awfully WP:NOTHERE approach to discussion. I'm asking politely again: Please return to the topic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing new to add re pronunciation, but the order of his names is not in question and not really disputed. He was "Otto Adolf" according to the most detailed biographies and according to himself. He described "Adolf" as his Rufname (customary name/nickname) see his police interrogation. A pity we don't have a recording of it. Zero^talk 00:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The source for the name order is Cesarani page 19. I have the book right here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa: by this, do you mean p. 19 of Cesarani addresses the name-order issue, or that it simply presents the name in this order? There's an obvious difference. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No, there's not much difference unless you think that Cesarani would intentionally write it incorrectly. Zero^talk 13:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Cesarani presents them in that order. But I also have Stangneth here. On page xviii she says: "But because Eichmann was aware that a lot of other people might see things differently, he carefully avoided using the name Adolf Eichmann, even making his wife call him by his first forename, Otto, which was also his grandfather's name." In the footnote to this passage (footnote 5, page 427) she says "After the end of the war in 1945, some confusion arose about Eichmann's forenames, and it has stubbornly persisted over the years. His name is, however, clearly verifiable. It appears not only on his birth certificate (Bundesarchiv Koblenz, All. Proz. 6/236) but also in official documents from the Nazi era—for example, in the records of the Central Office for Race and Resettlement (Bundesarchiv Berlin-Lichterfelde, Berlin Document Center, RuSH record Adolf Eichmann)." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Zero0000: there's a world of difference if the order has been called into question. As a for insance—Winsor McCay's birthdate has been called into question. Most sources just give whatever date (usually either September 26, 1867, or September 26, 1871) without comment. John Canemaker, on the other hand, goes into nearly a page of detail on the issues involved in determining a date, giving at least 5 credible candidates and examing them (dismissing none of them).

If the IP is right, and there is a debate about the correct word order, then we cannot rely on a single source that does no more than simply give a name order. This has nothing to do with accusing Cesarani of "intentionally writ[ing] it incorrectly"—more likely he simply may not have been aware of it, especially if it's an issue that has been discovered since Cesarani wrapped up the research for his book (it's been 13 years since publication).

I hope the IP is watching this and can provide a source. One way or another, this will have to be sorted out—WikiData already includes both name orders. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa provided overwhelming proof including his birth certificate as cited by a respected historian. That means it is now sorted out. You should drop it unless you can come up with a different respected historian who explains why it is false. Zero^talk 01:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Zero: "You should drop it"—why the aggression? If Dianaa has sorted it out, that's wonderful. She had not when you made the problematic comment I responded to (a comment and attitude that remains problematic—I hope it's not how you'll approach these issues in the future), and there remain issues to solve: (a) the WikiData item, and (b) a note should be added to the article, as the name-order issue has now been established as a documented issue, and one that has brought up discussion on the talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't see that there is any documented issue. With the help of Google you can find almost any combination of Karl, Otto and Adolf (even all three at once) but that only proves there is widespread confusion. Nobody has located an actual debate over it that I can see. Our task is to find the best sources and cite them, which I believe we have now done. A note in the article could cite Stangneth as saying that there is confusion that is easily resolved; I can't see a cause for any other note. Wikidata is a different project and not our concern here. Zero^talk 03:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Zero: "I can't see that there is any documented issue"—?!?!?!?!?! Dianaa just quoted it: "After the end of the war in 1945, some confusion arose about Eichmann's forenames, and it has stubbornly persisted over the years. ..." That's what we call "documented", and the quote explicitly addresses what the IP brought up.

"that only proves there is widespread confusion" ... *eyeroll* ... which is why we need to note it.

"Our task is to find the best sources and cite them"—I hope this is not seriously what you think there is to writing an article. "Comprehensive", for instance, is on the list of criteria for GA and FA.

This is such a trivial, straightforward fix to make, I can't imagine why you would want to prevent it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT and then explain how easily resolved confusion over the order of his birth names satisfies it. Not a debate between experts, but just confusion. I can go through this article and find multiple important facts which are the subject of confusion. The circumstances of his capture and carriage to Israel are the subject of multiple conflicting versions, for example. When experts disagree on something significant, we can note the disagreement, but confusion that was straightened out as soon as someone did the research needs a better excuse. That's why WP:FACR says "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Zero^talk 10:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Zero: you talk as if I'm calling for a subsection on the issue; I'm calling for a note. I'm thoroughly aware of WP:WEIGHT (I'm not new here). Can you please explain how noting it in any way contravenes WEIGHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please propose the text of a note. Zero^talk 00:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"The German historian Bettina Stangneth notes that Eichmann's birth certificate as well as official Nazi-era documents list his forenames in the order "Otto Adolf" rather than the other way around." °Stangneth 2014, p. 427. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That wording only makes the reader wonder why it would be "the other way around". Perhaps something like "After the war, confusion arose over the order of Eichmann's forenames, but his birth certificate confirms the order 'Otto Adolf'." (Stangneth 2014, p. 427) ? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a little too close to the source material, and needs to be more thoroughly paraphrased. How about "After the war, uncertainty cropped up as to the order of Eichmann's forenames. His birth certificate as well as official Nazi-era documents confirm the order 'Otto Adolf'" Stangneth 2014, p. 427 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Strangneth doesn't use "order of forenames" but just "forenames". There were other confusions, like a CIA report that calls him Karl Adolf (which even made it into Britannica). And another with "Adolf Karl". Also, "cropped up" feels a bit colloquial to me. I propose "After the war, uncertainty over his forenames became apparent. His birth certificate as well as official Nazi-era documents confirm that 'Otto Adolf' is correct", with same ref. Zero^talk 01:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Implemented. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More on pronunciation. Recall that there is a hard option for the "ch" (like in "nach" or "Bach") and a soft option (like in "Ich"). Our pronunciation guide for English has the Anglicised hard version, which is overwhelmingly the most common. However, it has the soft version for German. I want to challenge that. Here, here and here are three German documentaries on Eichmann. In all three cases, the narrator uses the hard version consistently. I thought I heard the soft version used by one interviewee in the first video (can't find it now), but otherwise all the interviewed experts use the hard version. In particular, note the Eichmann's German biographer Bettina Strangeth uses only the hard version (second video near the beginning and later on too). In the third video, native German speaker and Eichmann expert Simon Wiesenthal uses only the hard version. I propose that these videos together are a reliable source for the German pronunciation and that we should change it. Zero^talk 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Zero, I hear a soft version in the second video, including from Stangneth. Not as soft as "sh", but definitely not "ike". The third video is the same sound, including from Wiesenthal. If you listen to the third video at 1m 30s, you can hear it clearly. It's not a hard click. It's softer and longer. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I hear a guttural ich /x/ in [1] (around 4:40) and in [2] (around 0:10) from the narrator (and of course all of the Israelis/Jews talking about Eichmann use the guttural ich - e.g [3] Wiesenthal at 1:52). Note that this /x/ is not a hard k (like ike) - it's a guttural sound (like Hebrew כ or Arabic خ) - it's not a K - see - this pronunciation video. Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it's clearly a soft one, close to "sh", in all cases. I don't know where you get the guttural sound.

As I said above: "The other ch sound is only used after a, o, and u, never after e or i." In "Eichmann", it's the soft version, except in some dialects. Someone from Switzerland will use the hard version, and maybe people from close to the Swiss border. I don't know what it sounds like in Yiddish, but Wiesenthal talks German with a slight Austrian accent in the video, and he uses the soft version. The hard version would sound extremely weird to me, unless it was coming from Swiss people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The videos I linked to use the guttural sound almost exclusively. Also, rules that apply to ordinary words do not necessarily apply to family names so that argument is inadequate. The only correct pronunciation is how he pronounced it. Zero^talk 07:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The only explanation I have now for what you are saying is that you do not know what "guttural" means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It's the "ich" laut from the pronunciation video. The soft version. The non-guttural one, which is used after e or i, such as "ich". Not the hard, guttural one, as in "Bach". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation

I thought you pronounced it iyk-mun. "/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.61.228 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Immanuel Kant

I understand that Eichmann claimed during the course of the trial taht he thought of himself as a Kantian in ethics, but that he had to edit Kant "for the little man." I'm curious: was that a statement he made at trial, under direct and/or cross? Or does it come from pre-trial interrogations? --72.79.211.123 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Revelations about his intelligence are very interesting

Eichmann would in fact promote himself as an intelligence intellectual, even though he was not. Even the Eichmann in Jerusalem article notes "Despite his claims, Eichmann was not, in fact, very intelligent."2601:447:4080:10:D427:520C:2A1F:B0A8 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you contradict what you tried to put into the article: "Arendt revealed that Eichmann and heads of the Einsatzgruppen were part of an "intellectual elite."" Your source says the opposite: "members of an intellectual elite...unlike Eichmann". I agree with Dianaa that your text is unsatisfactory. Zero^talk 13:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this recent addition: Diff of Adolf Eichmann. My reasoning is as follows: The opening statement "In later years, Eichmann has also been cited as an example of how the Third Reich government was in fact more open to accepting intellectuals" is not supported by the source provided, which is this article. In fact the article says the opposite: The author notes that Hannah Arendt had described Eichmann as "terrifyingly normal", not as an intellectual. She does describe the Einstatzgruppen as members of an "intellectual elite", but not Eichmann. Hanna Arendt's opinion of Eichmann is already discussed in the Aftermath section. Them the next sentence " Eichmann was not as smart as he would claim he was" is an assumption about Eichmann's own assessment of his intelligence, which is something we should not be saying in Wikipedia's voice, and is not supported by the citations provided. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also in the previous section above. Zero^talk 13:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this isn't useful also. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Final appeal

I noticed the sentence " At 8:00 p.m. on 31 May, Eichmann was informed that his final appeal had been denied". However, a little before that, the article explains that the appeal was rejected a few days before, with an immediate request for clemency. This suggests to me (but I may misunderstand the Israeli legal system) that the information was not actually on the appeal, but on the rejection of the request for clemency. I'm assuming that the President does not have the power to overturn the sentence (which is implied by appeal). Or does this refer to the appeal in the context of the extradition? It would probably be good to clarify this in the sentence. effeietsanders 02:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have the source book here, and the final appeal was the appeal to the President for clemency. I will fix.— Diannaa (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! effeietsanders 21:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Eichmann said he was a zionist agent?

I have read that Eichmann had said that he was a Zionist agent when being interrogated jews. Is this true?

He claimed that he had been in favor of the Zionist cause as a way to get rid of the Jews by sending them to the Middle East, that he studied Zionism and had negotional meetings with Zionist organizations for that purpose. In his trial, he complains endlessly that this endeavor went to nil when his superiors decided to exterminate the Jews instead, while glossing over the fact that he himself proactively increased the efficiency of the German extermination machinery far beyond his orders. --2003:DA:CF2A:7100:C054:39B0:D4F4:21CF (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Eichmann was born in Tel Aviv, Israel.

According to the US intelligence, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB150/box14_do_file_vol1/doc19.pdf I can find no evidence of him being born in Solingen only Sarona, what is now Tel Aviv, Israel. His parents were in a Germany colony there for his fathers work when he was born too which is consistent time wise. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction! Just figured out that was his father! Thought it was odd he spoke Hebrew and Yiddish, didn't think that'd be taught in nazi high school. :P --121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither this Eichmann nor his father were born in Palestine, no matter what some "intelligence" report says. Zero^talk 07:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I think such a startling 'fact' would have been noticed by now by Israeli scholars (or anyone) with access to the Tel Aviv records of births and deaths. Simon Adler (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't be too quick to dismiss that report. That information seems to have been corroborated in 1958 from the West German version of the CIA, the BND. The National Archives write-up dismisses the intelligence that he had been born in Palestine (they actually said "Israel" which is technically correct because it didn't exist when Eichmann was born), but said that the BND also provided the first solid leads on his post-war whereabouts. Sounds like revisionism to reject one part of their report and accept another. The Aufbau magazine article was printed in 1948 or before (the CIA doc is dated 1948) and it would be of great interest to know how they came by that information, and why the BND apparently accepted that information as gospel a decade later. RRskaReb talk 02:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Per your reference, he was in Argentina at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.128.153 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A report claiming that he was living in Jerusalem in 1958 is your evidence? Please be serious. This myth was investigated by multiple biographers of Eichmann and dismissed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EichmannSSdoc.jpg. Zero^talk 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious from the very fact alone that a wrong first name is given in that intelligence report that this is neither the Eichmann who's the subject of this article, nor his father. Combine that with the fact that other Eichmann named in the report was in Israel in 1958. --2003:DA:CF2A:7100:C054:39B0:D4F4:21CF (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the German Federal Archives (located in Koblenz) states on its website dedicated to the trial[4] that it has acquired the personal case files of the trial of Dr. Servatius, Eichmann's defence lawyer, which contains Eichmann's birth certificate issued by the civil registry office of Solingen. According to the book Eichmann vor Jerusalem ("Eichmann before Jerusalem") [5] by Bettina Stangneth, Eichmann's birth certificate has the German Federal Archive number BArch Koblenz AllPrz 6/236. --2003:DA:CF2A:7100:C054:39B0:D4F4:21CF (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

"Blood for goods"

The ((blood for goods)) insert does not belong in this article.

03:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Eichmann is listed as one of the primary participants sdo I think the template should stay.— Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Cesarani (2005)

If an online preview of Cesarani's 2015 book Eichmann: His Life and Crimes is available, as it is in the UK, by which means, for example, the address of the Central Agency for Jewish Emigration in Vienna may be verified, it is "pointless" to add a GoogleBooks link? Perhaps all editors are expected to purchase a copy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Google knows more about us than we know about ourselves, including how much we looked at a book before. So an explanation for one person being able to see a preview and another not is that the latter looked at it in the past. But it is even more unreliable than that suggests. A few minutes ago I viewed about half a dozen random pages of "51" that were promised. Now, after reloading the book, I can see nothing except the table of contents. Go figure. I think the link should be kept because some people can see some pages some of the time. Zero^talk 12:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

After another reload, I can see it again. Google is making fun of me. Zero^talk 12:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

£8, pre-owned, "As new condition", paperback, located in Bolton, Lancashire: on eBay (postage to USA may cost more). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I bought my copy new. Originally I said to myself that I would never buy books specifically to edit Wikipedia, but yeah, that didn't happen. I don't get to look at a preview of this book at Google.com, or Google.uk, or Google.ca. (I live in Canada, as you may already know.) Even when Google offers a preview, you will only get so many looks at a book, and then they tell you to buy the book. You might get additional looks if you clear your cache. Even if the person is offered a preview, often the very pages that we use as citations are the ones they choose to make unavailable. — Diannaa (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There used to be an illegal website that took requests for books. It would use the fact that on different google sites and at different times google would serve up different pages, and compile the book page by page. Google eventually cracked down on it and changed the algorithm for selecting which pages to show. I doubt if there is a description anywhere. I suspect from experience that it knows when we try to preview a book at two different google sites, but that could be paranoia. I now take an immediate screen capture of important pages as they may not be visible again. Zero^talk 01:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Religious views categories

The Christian branch that Eichmann grew up in no doubt appears in his biographies, but I think that a category should reflect an adult perspective. The most detailed source I know of for the last months of his life is in the book "A Struggle for a Soul" by William Hull (DoubleDay, 1963). Hull was a "evangelical fundamental Christian" minister who had many long periods of access to Eichmann while he was in prison in Israel, up to and including the execution. Hull and his wife took it upon themselves to "save Eichmann's soul" (hence the title of the book) by getting Eichmann to accept Jesus, but Eichmann would not. Eichmann professed belief in God but steadfastly refused to accept Hull's entreaties. Hull: "Jesus spoke of His people as only 'a little flock.' You can­ not make a detour around the cross; you must come straight through Jesus." Eichmann: "I do not believe that God needed a mediator, His Son Jesus.". (The conversation gets pathetic, with Eichmann angrily denying he had done anything wrong.) Eichmann in another conversation: "I am talking about whether I am ready to meet God. You say that the only way is through Jesus; you get it out of that book which is Jewish thought. I don't believe it." In the hour before the execution, Hull repeatedly invited Eichmann to "call on the name of Jesus", but he would not. Given Hull's testimony, it is impossible to attribute Christian beliefs to Eichmann in his last days. Zero^talk 02:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Unremarkable" comment

"After an unremarkable school career..." is included in the article, yet no real context as to what this means? Anytime an adjective of this sort is included in any article, even one describing a convicted war crimes criminal, this should either be a quote by someone using said word, or there should be some sort of substantial evidence requiring references in order to justify it.

I don't know much about Eichmann, I'm reading about Nuremberg and ended up trying to find out a little info about some of the participants on both sides of the trials, but the "unremarkable" comment stands out to me as though someone wants to portray this man as dim witted or stupid. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, I'm not one to say, I merely believe that there should be more to back up the comment. Also, school isn't really a career, that word is also in question.2600:8804:80:2280:54E0:95AE:400A:F347 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to change it to "after graduation" but upon reading the body of the article, I see that he never did graduate. His father got him transferred from the Realschule (equivalent to what we call "high school" in North America) to a vocational school. He dropped out, and went to work for his father and later took a job in sales. In other words, he failed to complete his secondary education (or, in Canada, we would say he didn't finish high school). So I amended it to read "After doing poorly in school" which gets rid of the word "career" which my Oxford dictionary shows is not appropriate in this context. Cesarini says on page 21 that he got "poor grades at school". Eichmann said "I was not a diligent pupil." — Diannaa (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Eichmann-1156700.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Main Photo

Main photo should not include a glorified military photo. The man is a war criminal responsible for the Holocaust and a photo of him on trial is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthehistory (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, and in that image he does look slightly lost and pathetic. The best image might be of him in the hangman's noose. But he's not notable for being executed, or even for being captured and eventually tried. He's notable for the horrifically inhumane things he did while wearing that uniform. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

He is well known because he was put on trial for his crimes in Israel that was broadcasted worldwide so by that logic the trial photo should be the main photo. The use of military photo conveys a sense of pride for the Nazis and really the trial photo is an attempt at achieving justice.Iamthehistory (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No, he is most well known because of his crimes, without which there would have been no trial. I agree, if you were a Nazi you might feel pride. Most readers will feel revulsion. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree he is known for his crimes but it is the trial that brought worldwide attention to him and the Holocaust. I agree the picture is revolting but usually military photos are considered a source of pride (ask any military family in any country). He is repulsive and his main picture should be him on trial. The man is pathetic and should have a picture showing justice being given in a trial with him in a cage. What is your rationale for a happy military photo of him as the main photo then? Iamthehistory (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

As I explained above, he is known for his crimes. The uniform picture shows him at the time of his crimes. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the photo in the infobox is to identify the subject of the article, not to right great wrongs or to present a particular point of view. Nazis, including the top brass as well as the rank and file and military, wore their uniforms virtually all the time. So photos of them in uniform are probably better for identification purposes than ones with civilian clothes.— Diannaa (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a 'military' uniform, anyway - he was a member of the SD -the 'intelligence' branch of the SS - not the army or even the Waffen-SS. His is the uniform of the enforcement of Nazi racial philosophy - a murderer of civilians.50.111.19.34 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Lead image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus to use image A (1942 photo) as the lead image. To go a bit into the arguments, the discussion first began by trying to choose a picture that would picture the subject under the role he is most known for. Some participants believe Eichmann is best known for his capture and trial and as such a picture of him at that time would be best, alongside the argument that a more recent photo (in color, even) would also benefit the overall quality of the article.

Those in favor of the older photo say he should be represented by a picture wearing his uniform of the Nazi regime, not only because they believe he is most well known for the part he played in the holocaust (the reason he ended up in trial), but also because it helps the reader quickly identify the subject's place in history.

While both arguments are solid and follow MOS:LEADIMAGE, the discussion has shown that most editors believe that the 1942 photo would better suit the article and its readers. Editors did note that the 1961 photo could be used in the body of the article.

--(non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the infobox use A: 1942 photo, B: 1961 photo, or C: 1961 (zoomed in)?

For background, please see discussion above: #Lead_photo. The two images are included below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A third image is included in the Discussion section. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• 
  A: 1942 photo
• 
  B: 1961 photo

{{{annotations}}}

C: 1961 photo (zoomed in)

Edit: as suggested below, I added Option C. Since it's a variant of the same 1961 image, I would ask the closer to treat B+C as one result. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: "Edit" - B and C are same image. This is like putting a candidate's name on the ballot twice. The RfC was between two images, you can't add a third (especially when the "third" is the same as one of the two) after the RfC has started. Only if there is a consensus to change the uniform image to the trial image should it then be decided wether or not to use the cropped version. The third image should be removed. - wolf 01:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• A - In uniform, in the role in which he arranged the Holocaust. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• A the lead image should let the reader know that he was a paramilitary officer in the Nazi Party and not give the interpretation he was a civilian MOS:LEADIMAGE. His military career is the defining factor of his historical infamy. To quote "during the Eichmann trial for Lt. Col. Eichmann's crimes against humanity, the chief prosecutor, Gideon Hausner, drew attention to the executive significance and command responsibility of the rank of Obersturmbannführer, in response to Eichmann's claim that he was merely a clerk obeying orders".Moxy- 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Since this appears to be an issue, why not put both images in side-by-side? Bermicourt (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Never been a fan of this approach because we end up with 2 small images instead of one image that is clearly visible. Kind of like collages in city articles.... mini images are useless on a phone... that now represent 70% of our viewership....they also cause a scrolling nightmare losing us readers.Moxy- 16:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead image should be A, in my view, for all the reasons already given above. But all three photos should be used in the article, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neither/none (Summoned by bot) – neither of these two images are typical of Eichmann: He was definitely not the swashbuckling warrior the first image seems to suggest, and the trial was not what he is known for, just the last sensationalized chapter of it. The ideal photo would show him hunched over a desk in his role as the mousy, mild-mannered, accountant of death, signing the death warrant of a hundred thousand Hungarians. Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, so the swashbuckling murder of 5.1 million Jews unfortunately far less photogenic than the mild-mannered bureaucratic murder of 5.1 million Jews? Shame. Martinevans123 (talk)

• A as the lead, for the reasons given above. But all three photos should be used in the article, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC) duplicate; Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• B or C: the subject came to worldwide notoriety largely through his capture & trial, so the 1961 image would be far more recognizable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• A: the subject came to worldwide notoriety largely through his organisation of the murder of about 5.1 million Jews. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• A: the subject is more widely known as an SS officer and one of the architects of the Holocaust. While the Nuremberg Trials certainly have a wide degree of recognition, he wasn't tried until years later. Other than opinions here, I don't see any evidence that his trial gained him more notoriety than his role in the genocide of over 5 million Jews.

  Also, where does this end? I see recent changes, or attempts to change, the lead images of Göring, Mengele & Himmler. Will this extend to the entire Nazi High Command? Every German officer from WWII? What about other military uniforms that can be associated with mass-death? Russians of the Stalinist or Empire era? Napoleon's Grand Armée? The Khmer Rouge? This is an encycopaedia, we shouldn't be removing image content just because we don't like it. (Or are even disgusted by it.) imo - wolf 01:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• A because it is a better portrayal of who he was. That said, some of the arguments for A here are simply wrong; Eichmann is far far better known today because of his trial than he would be without it. I !vote for A because his importance to history (different from his fame) derives from his time as an enthusiastic mass-murderer. The pathetic figure in the glass box should be in the article somewhere but it doesn't do enough justice to the facts of history to put it into the lead. Zero^talk 04:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose B - too zoomed out and cluttered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• A this is his official portrait, or equivalent. Also best resolution and depiction. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• B or C: Unlike Göring, who was already a well known public figure prior to the Nuremberg Trial, Eichmann was largely unknown to the public prior to his capture and trial. In this instance, an image depicting Eichmann during the trial is better suited. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to clarify my reasoning. First, picture A is a good picture and I agree to everything said about this picture and I have no issue if this picture remains in the infobox. However, when I look at picture A, I foremost see a person in a SS uniform, someone who could easily be replaced by someone else. I personally run the risk of overlooking and recognizing the person Eichmann in the uniform. The trial took Eichmann out of the uniform and made him personally as an individual responsible for the crimes he committed, it was not a trial about the SS as an organization symbolized by the uniform. With respect to Göring, uniform and person were inseparable. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• A - Depicts him in the capacity that ensured his notoriety. Unimpressed with arguments that he was relatively unknown to the public before his trial, he held a clearly defined role in the German military hierarchy. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• A — I think even if we were to concede that he was only relatively known because of the trial, the central premise of the trial was that he was, indeed, a Nazi official and that he committed atrocities in that capacity. A tells us much more about the subject in that regard and is much more representative of his notoriety today than B. (Summoned by bot) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• B: I did not have a strong view as to this in the past, as I could see arguments for both sides; and still do feel that way, overall. With that said, "when push comes to shove", so to speak, I believe photo B is better suited for the subject of this article. I agree with the argument that, to the general public at large, "unlike Göring, who was already a well known public figure prior to the Nuremberg Trial, Eichmann was largely unknown... prior to his capture and trial." Said trial was news around the world and televised. Photo A should be included in the article in either the Early career section or Wannsee Conference section. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• A 1942 photo - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• A 1942 photo. I agree with others that the 'trial' photo is probably now better known - and therefore more recognisable - than the 1942 photo, but the reasons for his notoriety are his actions in the 1940's and therefore a photo from that time is more apt. I doubt strongly that the photo would have any 'propaganda' purpose now to anyone who was not already a dedicated fan. Though any photo begs the same unanswerable question of how a seemingly reasonable human being could actually have been so inhumane in their deeds. Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• B. As others have noted, this is the more recognizable photograph of him. To everyone who thinks A is more appropriate because it depicts him in Nazi uniform, and therefore associates him more strongly with his historical importance rather than his trial: I invite you to observe the bus stop memorial midway down this article. What images are given greater prominence? Consider the location of the memorial (at the site of his former office in Berlin) and the people who created it (German historians). Consider the textual context (it is very much about his role in the Holocaust, and minimally about the trial). Do we really need a uniformed glamour photo to express to readers that he was a Nazi, or that he was historically important during WWII and the Holocaust? The memorial minimizes it, and yet there is no mistaking its purpose. Remember also that Hannah Arendt's famous phrase "the banality of evil" was first used to describe Eichmann at his trial. What do we want to show? The banality of evil? Or, as David Cesarani's description of image A has it, the "smiling young SS officer with filmstar looks"? -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• C (or B). Is there a relevant policy which says to prefer a "most recognizable" photo? That seems odd-- in most contexts, I am accustomed to preferring the most recent photo that meets baseline standards of clarity and quality. In this case, the more recent photo is also in colour, a clear advantage. Personally I don't find either photo particularly recognizable (I don't go "of course! Eichmann!"), but the recent photo has the advantage of not looking like a thousand other photos I've seen of other fancy Nazis, so on "recognizability" grounds I also prefer the recent one. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• A He is known for his involvement with the SS and his role in the Holocaust, but is also recognised for his trial for those crimes. Ultimately, his notoriety both from his time on trial and during the Holocaust revolve around his actions in the SS, so an image of him in his SS uniform is the most informative and reflective of his notability. Endwise (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• A The photo of the him in the nazi uniform establishes quickly for the reader what he was and what he was responsible for. Its the actual context for why he is notable, and why he was on trial. The trial photos don't help to indicate what he is known for. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• A for the lead image. B/C belongs in the body of the article in the relevant section. Some1 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• A for the lead, as that is how he appeared for the period of time that he is most notable. Later in the article can use B or C. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• A - In the uniform indicating the role in which he warrants notoriety. Lindenfall (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Lead image

{{{annotations}}}

option C:

Added 'survey' header above for clarity, and moved one vote previously interpolated in the middle of the lead into the survey section. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Tried to add option C: (1961 photo zoomed), but was not able to get it to display the same in both desktop and mobile view, so adding it here instead. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Object to the addition of "option C" in this manner, as noted above. - wolf 01:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I have solicited opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for this RFC. Mathglot, I have moved your survey opinion to the correct section, I hope you don't mind. — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gerhard Klammer reference

Since there's a paywall on Ofer Aderet's Haaretz article, which anyway is based on a Süddeutsche Zeitung article, it would be better to replace the Aderet reference (and perhaps its mention in the bibliography) with a reference to the translation of the SZ article which currently doesn't have a paywall. There are several several other articles without paywalls based on the SZ article, among them these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcljlm (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I will go with https://www.timesofisrael.com/eichmann-nabbed-by-mossad-after-tipoff-from-german-co-worker-report-reveals/— Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not the SZ translation of its original article? Mcljlm (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes which citation we use.— Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it better to use a direct source rather than an indirect source? Mcljlm (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Why?— Diannaa (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I notice the German article has the German SZ article as its reference: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#cite_note-29. Why shouldn't the English article at least include https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/the-man-who-exposed-adolf-eichmann-e933572/? Mcljlm (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes which citation we use. There's nothing wrong with the one I chose. — Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that derivative articles tend to be less informative than the originals unless they are straight translations. In this case it is exceptionally so. The TofI article only mentions a photo, but the SZ article makes clear that Klammer provided much more specific information such as the street address where Eichmann lived. Actually our article at the moment mentions an address but I don't find that information in TofI. So verification is lacking. Zero^talk 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Copyright infringement or plagiarism?

Other than replacing the word 'removal' with 'dissolution', the excerpt below comes verbatim from military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann and the article doesn't cite that webpage. Is that okay because it's a 'wiki' or is that plagiarism?

"During this time, he joined the Jungfrontkämpfervereinigung, the youth section of Hermann Hiltl's right-wing veterans movement, and began reading newspapers published by the Nazi Party. The party platform included the dissolution of the Weimar Republic in Germany, rejection of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, radical antisemitism, and anti-Bolshevism. They promised a strong central government, increased Lebensraum (living space) for Germanic peoples, formation of a national community based on race, and racial cleansing via the active suppression of Jews, who would be stripped of their citizenship and civil rights." Niccast (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The bottom of that page says "This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors)." so it's a case of that site copying from here, not the other way around. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

Not sure how this works, someone reverting an adjustment i made, twice. Really seems to me it should be "percent" as in how much it is a part (percentage) of, instead of per cent, so much for every cent (?). G Wijnsma (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You were reverted because this article is written in British English and the way “percent” is spelled in British English is “per cent”. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)