Talk:Adolf Eichmann/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Translation

"He lives near Buenos Aires .." is translated correctly by "Er wohnt in der Nähe von Buenos Aires ..". The current translation "beinahe" is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.189.201 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I was reading the Arabic version of Adolf Eichmann's life and there is a part where they put some quotes of him in court and that he does the Nazi salute which I can't find in the English version, can someone please take a look at this. Thanks 217.151.224.29 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

General Comment

I just wanted to congratulate the contributors on an excellent article. Your work seems thorough, the tone is very well balanced (tough I imagine given the subject), and informative. If anyone has the knowledge and the competence I would suggest expanding the level of detail about Eichmann's work during WWII in order to provide more context for the latter sections about his capture and trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iabrown (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove reference to Ward Churchill

What is the relevance to Eichmann of Ward Churchill?

This reference to Ward Churchill doesn't belong in an article on Eichmann; but should be in an article on "Ward Churchill."

Agreed, it absolutely does not belong in this article. Zero^talk 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Both Ward Churchill and Little Eichmanns have articles. At the most, there could be a disambiguation at the top of this page, but even that's not necessary, IMO. freshacconci talktalk 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the rationale for adding a cross-reference to the Little Eichmanns page in the "censorship" position stated below. Tenna talk 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

Didn't Eichmann's official nazi photo portrait used to appear in this article? All the other articles on nazi leaders seem to have them.137.166.68.65 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There were probably issues with ownership of the image. I added one from commons from the trial, pending something better coming along. freshacconci talktalk 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorhip of Churchill's Little Eichmann's Metaphor

Ward Churchill's use of John Zerzan's metaphor referring to the people in the WTC center attacks is an important modern reference to Hannah Arednt and John Zerzan's analysis of Adolf Eichmann. The metaphor "Little Eichmanns" is significant and entirely pertinent to the analysis and further reading related to Adolf Eichmann. In fact, there's a wiki page for history of the metaphor at Little_Eichmanns which cites the relationship between Zerzan, Arendt, and Churchill. It is of significant value to the Adolf Eichmann page to cross-reference John Zerzan and Ward Churchill's use of this metaphor, as it is agreed upon outside of Wikipedia that they base their usage on the analysis of Hannah Arendt. While some editors may not like the use of the metaphor, they should not express their POV by censuring any and all mention of it on the Eichmann page, thus forcing the public to find it on their own. It adds scholastic value that anybody studying Eichmann and starting from this page should be provided a cross-reference (i.e. link) to the infamous metaphor. A compromise should be achieved by adding a mention of this in the Analysis section or adding a link in the Further Reading section. Tenna (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're going to find it difficult reaching a compromise by using loaded words such as "censorship" as this has nothing to do with censorship (i.e. no government is attempting to remove or enforce the removal of content). An editor removing information from a page is an editorial decision, a WP:BOLD edit, vandalism, a disruption or any number of possibilities, but is never censorship. freshacconci talktalk 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a loaded word, but deleting any/all references to the metaphor can easily be considered as such (Random House definition of Censor (n)(v)). Also, please consider the sensitivity of performing such an edit (i.e. deletion in entirety) considering Professor Churchill's story. Nevertheless, let's achieve a compromise. Once we do, it will be clear to everybody that none of us has the intention of censoring this information. Tenna [[talk 06:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of Eichmann's name in popular culture is not out of the question as a topic for this page but so far nothing suitable has been suggested. The Ward Churchill incident says lots of things about lots of topics but essentially nothing about Eichmann himself. So I don't think it is appropriate here. I'd suggest a "See also" for Little Eichmanns except that that article is badly mistaken about the history of the phrase (see Talk:Little Eichmanns for my proof). Zero^talk 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

While the Churchill story is not about Eichmann, usage of the Little Eichmanns metaphor is directly related to his Analysis and specifically Hannah Arendt's analysis. Furthermore, this article mentions several references in the Analysis section which go beyond merely citing facts about Eichmann himself. Let's include a hyperlink to Little Eichmanns in the "Further Reading" section - and describe the hyperlink as a modern metaphor based on Arendt's analysis. That will reduce the chance of others adding impertinent information about any of the metaphor's users. Perhaps you'd prefer another action be taken but aren't sure what to suggest. Agreed, the Little Eichmanns article should be updated (rewritten?) to include the facts presented in Talk:Little Eichmanns, but that's a separate issue. Tenna [[talk 06:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

awards and decorations section

i think i act properly in removing this section for following reasons:

• awards listed are uncited
• these awards are not of interest to anyone other than nazi obsessives
• these awards do not reflect military merit (ie were not given as reward for military achievement but, as the wikipedia article on them asserts, as a gesture to honour the murder of civilians) and so listing without context is misleading
• these awards were given out liberally to senior nazis - equivalent to listing awards on eg gaddafi's page - and so are not of significance. if to be listed here, entries for dictators etc should all be edited to include such awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.52.240 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly putting forth certain POV arguments and a political viewpoint. Like it or not Wikipedia is (in part) for articles on people of history: the good, the bad and the ugly. Your comments and your edit summaries don't support removal of the "awards and decorations" and the info. provided should remain as part of the article. You should also review WP:NPOV. Kierzek (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Legal Authority

Although it is mentioned here, the question of Israeli legal authority to try and then execute Eichman is not explained. Was there any, or is it just a case of might making right? I don't condone Eichman's acts regarding the Holocaust, but it was not done on Israeli soil or to Israeli citizens (Israel not existing until after the Holocaust was over). How can Israel then claim authority to try him? 138.162.128.54 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question. Yes the Holocaust wasn't in Israel but many survivors of the Holocaust went to Israel after the war. Obviously in 1945 it wasn't called Israel though. In 1948 when the state of Israel was created many survivors went to live in Israel then too. You would know that Israel is a Jewish state right? and Eichmann was responsible for planning the deaths of millions of Jews so Israel would be the most fitting place for him to be tried that way I guess he got a taste of his own medicine.

If Eichmann was tried in Germany or Austria I don't think that the trial would have been taken so seriously because at the time when Eichmann was trialled most Germans didn't want to talk about the Holocaust because they couldn't believe their country could be associated with such atrocities.

I hope I answered your questions! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.232.79 (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The part about Ward Churchill and the "Little Eichmann" statement he made should be added on to, because one of the reasons he fired was for academic plagiarism, not this particular saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.194.80 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Trial - illogical inaccuracy / Neutral point of view

In "trial" part, paragraph six, which starts "Witnesses for the defense, all of them former high-ranking..." has the following inaccuracy, conscious or not :

It is stressed out that the defence ( yeah, this is the correct spelling ) has requested witnesses that did not come, but did send court depositions. It is illogical that no of them ( the depositions ) supports the defence. Even more - they support the prosecution. These are no defence witnesses. The result is that the reader remains with the impression that even the defence is sure in its own guilt.

Moreover in the same paragraph the "neutral point of view" is biased: What is the explanation of the defence for not cross-examining the witnesses.

Even moreover ( just kidding :) ) there are some facts, which circulate "here" in wikipedia, which could have proved to be as such ( at the time of the trial ), that lessen the guilt of the prosecuted.

P.S. I wrote not a long time ago in another post of mine and ( I ) write again: "No, I am not a fascist!" but things, in my opinion should be put straight. Might be a bad analogy but imagine a surgeon, saying "Yeah I know that this is not the heart, but this is what we are meant think because of the great quantity of casualties during surgery!". Still, hatred is something I do not wish many people ( I hope they are none ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.53.133 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No specific info about his crimes?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.199.163 (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Capture/Kidnapping procedure

The following, unsourced passage:

"Once Eichmann alighted and began walking the short distance to his home, he was asked by the agent at the car, Zvi Aharoni, for a cigarette. When Eichmann reached in his pocket he was set upon by the two by the car. Eichmann fought but team member Peter Malkin, a Polish Jew and a black belt in karate, knocked Eichmann unconscious with a strike to the back of his neck and bundled him into the car and took him to the safe house."

has a contradictory description in Neal Bascomb's _Hunting Eichmann_. Bascomb states that Malkin left the car and asked Eichmann a question in Spanish: Un momentito, senor and after Malkin caught Eichmann's attention, he grabbed him and after a short fight dragged him to the car. According to Bascomb, Eichmann was not knocked unconscious, but gave up to the overwhelming strength of Malkin. This fragment is not sourced in Bascomb book, however many other are - this is a well-referenced work.

Does anyone have better/other information? Should no new information come up, I will change this fragment in a few days. agnus (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Malkin claims in his books that he was the one to first approach Eichmann and speak. Rachelofthecornfields (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism

In the capture section, in the paragraph beginning "Eichmann was captured by a team of Mossad agents", the paragraph finished with the sentence, "Thus ended just one of the innumerable acts of state sponsored terrorism by Israel." Typical procedure dictates a discussion before removal, but I found this statement should be removed immediately. Perhaps this article should be semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandinho14 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism can be removed without a discussion. This article is periodically protected, but no article is protected for long periods of time. If there is consistent vandalism over a short period of time, it could be protected for a few days. Often vandals get bored and move on. Unfortunately, this is an article that attracts specific types of vandals who do not get bored easily. All we can do is be vigilant and revert when necessary. freshacconci talktalk 04:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Eichmann as the first man to be executed in Israel

The article´s claim that Eichmann ’is the only man to have been legally and judicially executed in Israel to date‘, is probably incorrect. ″[Eichmann ] was found guilty of crimes against humanity, and on May 31, 1962, became the only man apart from the unfortunate captain Toubianski to suffer the death penalty in the history of the State of Israel″ Stewart Steven (1982) The Spymasters of Israel Ballantine Books ISBN 0-345-29910-8 p 134. For details of Toubianski trial, execution and posthumous rehabilitation, see the entry for Meir Tobianski.

It all comes down to the interpretation of ‘legally and judicially executed’, which might be better expressed as ‘lawfully’. In this case, Tobianski's field court martial, where -among other irregularities- he was denied access to a defence counsel, was probably unlawful. In fact, Isser Be'eri was later tried and found guilty of manslaughter in relation to Tobianski's execution.

In any case, it is questionable that the claim of Eichmann´s status as first man to undergo death penalty in Israel really adds much to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.189.8 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is civilian versus military court system. Zero^talk 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This might be a difference, indeed, but it was not reflected by the earlier version of the article ’[Eichmann]is the only man to have been legally and judicially executed in Israel to date‘. Now it is and I am glad of it, for the sake of poor Tobianski who died innocent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.189.8 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

revert deleted section

We have a mainstream, sourced example on a recent analysis of the "Eichmann" archetype. An editor removed the reference in what seems to me to be a textbook example of BIAS judgment editing. The concept in question is not even used originally by the author in question, but that is not the point at all. It is not the place for us to judge on whether he was right or wrong.

Please see wp:verifiability. This is relavant enough to be included. Period. Maziotis (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:verifiability, but the reliable sources you provided and the conclusion you are drawing to the paragraph reference is WP:SYN. You are relying on an essay(or the self-published follow up book) from a fired professor for this addition. The sources you provide(only two are WP:RS) do not analyze the essay, but were citing the fact the author was fired for plagiarism and the pressure on the university to fire him. Even the essay itself has nothing to do with Eichmann or the theory propagated by Arendt. There is no reason for this to be included in the Eichmann page, especially in the manner you are inserting it. I will step back now and let it settle, to see if anyone else has any opinions on the matter. My vote is to not include this in the present state, if at all. DD2K (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was fired has got nothing to do with this case. You are only using that as a bias justification to remove a point of view that you have determined to be false, as it is patent in the justification you gave in the summary. Curiously, the court case that you use to discredit him was won by him. But even if he had lost, the point still stands by verifiability.

I am happy to hear that you already knew the policy wp:verifiability. I can tell you that I already knew about wp:synthesis. However, I do believe that you are wrong in the use you make of them in this case. The sources in question don't need to have as a main focus the information for which they are being used. The fact is that this case represents a recent popular event that brought an archetype of the subject of this article into light. What you have said about the sources is beside the point. The fact that the eichmann-churchill link is academically of little interest doesn't mean that it is not relevant for inclusion. Eichmann was discussed in several media sources for what he represented in the analogy made by author Ward Churchill, in the sense that he is being explored in that section. The sources do make a reference to Eichmann himself in relation to the expression used in this case.

Exactly, why would you consider out of place to have an explanation on “little Eichmann” in a section of the Eichmann article? I really find that odd. After all, the expression is at the moment considered notable enough to have an article. Maziotis (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DD2K is quite correct here. The insertion of this information violates WP:SYNTH and has nothing to do with Eichmann, other than someone drawing a parallel to two unrelated historical events. WP:V does not trump all other guidelines. There is an article on Ward Churchill and the term "Little Eichmanns" either redirects there or should be redirected there. Within this article it is very much a case of WP:UNDUE. freshacconci talktalk 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am just reading incorrect information here. Did you actually read the sources? The sources do very much directly make reference to both Eichmann and little Eichmann. I think that it would be very easy to find thousands just like these ones. This is a very established case on "Eichmann" as an archetype. It doesn't matter if you personally find it interesting or not. The sources do make a link between the two. My position never relied at all on wp:V trumping any other policies. Maziotis (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you did state "Please see wp:verifiability. This is relavant enough to be included. Period." That kind of sounds like you take WP:V to carry more weight than other guidelines. Second, yes I did read some of the sources. I did not claim that there was no reference to Adolf Eichmann: obviously there is. Churchill's whole thesis is based on the comparison. However, the thesis itself has nothing to do with Eichmann the person. His name and some of his traits have been used to draw an analogy. But to include it within this article does violate WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE as the theoretical concept of Little Eichmanns has nothing to do with the actual Eichmann. This is an idea that was conceived decades after his death. I've always felt that a hatnote would be appropriate to lead readers to the Churchill article. To include the section on Churchill gives it far too much undue weight given the superficial connections of the concept and its namesake. freshacconci talktalk 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to think that you haven't either read the sources or the section in question. We have an article on Eichmann that disucsses how he has been perceived as an archtype by several authors. The entire section is on the anology that you say is of no interest in what the Churchill piece is regarded. The sources are as clear about a discussion over what Eichmann represents in that section as in any of the other cases.

Please don't take my comment on verifiability out of context. In what his professed personal opinion is regarded, I do have to say that is is all a question of being verifiable and not truthful - period. Maziotis (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take your comment out of context. I quoted the entire comment. What more can I glean from that comment? As for the section in question, yes I did read it. Many times. The problem is this: there is an established view of Eichmann based on Arnendt's theory of the banality of evil. This is an accepted view and many have commented on Arendt's idea. Churchill's view, while being based on Arendt's idea, still requires a huge theoretical leap. We are asking the reader to understand what Churchill means and are treating it (within this context) as established, mainstream and a logical parallel to Arendt. And that may be true and you and I can agree on this point and slap ourselves on the back all we want, but the problem remains: it is a synthesis of published sources and as a viewpoint it is marginal at best. We go from Arendt (established and credible, whether we agree with it or not) to Churchill (not mainstream nor credible, decidedly WP:FRINGE whether we agree with it or not). I add the emphasis on that last clause because it does not matter what you or I personally believe. We can only go by credible, established sources. Yes, Little Eichmanns is an article. No one disputes the notability of the concept within the context of that article. It has been discussed within verifiable sources. However, the connection from Arendt's idea to Churchill's is superficial and is not verifiable. To include this information is to say: here's Arendt's idea. Here's the next logical extension of that idea (Churchill). Who says that Churchill's is the next logical extension of that idea? We Wikipedia editors? Well, that would be a synthesis of ideas, not tertiary information. freshacconci talktalk 22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We, as editors, make that sort of call all the time. There is no perfect version. We add information as we come to it. The final version is always relatively bias, and we can only count on other editors to make it a little better. I think the impossible challenge with which you ended your last post is vague and applies to all the content in wikipedia. It should not represent an unsolvable dilemma.

I think the problem in this case is the link to Arendt. I don't see how the inclusion of Churchill relies on a link with that author. It was not from that perspective at all that I was including the paragraph. If you like, we can cut the current link on the subject with the expression "this perspective" and add it as just another example in the next paragraph. Now, what you have been arguing so far about the views of Churchill not being directly sourced to Eichmann as an archetype is simply not true. And that is the only real issue for matters of having an objective criterion for inclusion in this article, in this specific section. I really don't care on what you think about Churchill as an author, and I am not at all available to discuss with you his credibility. I think that is the kind of problem that we have been facing here. The issue on wheter he is of legitimate use for inclusion in here should not depend on that sort of issues.

You did take my comment out of the context in which I used it. I explained myself in my last post. Do you contest what I have said? In what way don't you understand that when a person makes a call to edit on a personal view, it is relevant to point out to that person that in matters of content, in what the issue of bias is concerned, it is verifiability, not truth that matters. Maziotis (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This question came up before, see archive #2 of this Talk page. The Ward Churchill thing had hardly anything to do with this page, it was just a trivial use of the well-known phrase "little Eichmanns" (see Talk:Little Eichmanns for earlier examples). It taught us nothing about Eichmann and is nothing more than trivia. This is completely different from the Arendt example, since Arendt wrote extensively about Eichmann and her opinions engendered consdierable debate about Eichmann. Churchill wrote nothing original about Eichmann at all. He doesn't belong here. Zero^talk 23:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The deleted section should NOT be re-instated. Mr. Churchill is far too minor to be considered an authority; the parallel he was trying to make is weak, as well. Kierzek (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero, I remember discussing that with you on that talk page article. I am aware that the expression has been used before. And if you read this discussion, you can understand that I am aware that Churchill's statement inclusion would never be on the merit of being an original academic exploration of Arendt's perspective. The Eichmann archetype that is being explored in that section is however of notable use in a more recent controversy. It is not trivial at all. The whole issue was about ethics around that very expresssion. The biography and analysis of Eichmann's work and life was brought up by several media sources many times. There was indeed a disucssion around the subject that I deemed relevant as an editor. I may be wrong. But issues such as the fact that Ward Churchill did not used it for the first time are of no use for what we are discussing here. It's not as if we owe the orignal author some respect in this article. Churchill did use it in a very notable way, and his reference in the article doesn't concern at all his contribution as an author in either way. Those who say that the debate around the figure of Eichmann was vague clearly didn't follow any controvery, read any articles, saw the news, read any books.

Kierzek, I understand that there has been consensus before, but consensus change. I am working on changing it now. You cannot ban a piece of information forever from an article. Maziotis (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Work all you want Maziotis but the consensus (a main staple of Wikipedia) is against you on this point. And that was my point. The section should not be included for the valid reasons I and others have stated. Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maziotis - your last comment is inappropriate and you are 'challenging' the editors that you will have your way - let's be adults here. HammerFilms1 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC) HammerFilms1

Former Nazis granted immunity to testify?

The article claims that "Witnesses for the defense, all of them former high-ranking Nazis, were promised immunity and safe conduct from their German and Austrian homes to testify in Jerusalem on Eichmann's behalf." But in Eichmann in Jerusalem (p. 220), Arendt claims that immunity was withheld by the Israeli government. At the very least, it strikes me that someone should find a citation for the claim that immunity was offered -- if one can't be found, perhaps this section should be removed.

A bit of each. Initially no immunity was offered, then after the defense made a big fuss some were offered immunity. I have sources which I will bring when I get a chance. Zero^talk 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Book of Samuel

Amoruso wants to reinsert

Ben-Zvi's replies for declining the clemency consisted of quoting a passage from the First Book of Samuel: "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." (1 Samuel 15:33, Samuel's words to Agag, king of the Amalekites).

According to the NYT (June 2, 1962), the president wrote this passage on the telegram that he received from Eichmann's wife Vera who "begged him to show mercy for the 'mother of four children'". If you read the passage carefully you can see it applies very well to Vera's situation, but it doesn't apply at all well to the many prominent people who wrote to the president asking that Eichmann not be executed. Amoruso claimed he couldn't quite remember what was in the book [1] and then admitted that maybe he misremembered who it was written for [2]. Now he wants to return essentially his original version. Let's see the actual text of what the source says, preferably a scan of that page of the book, first. Zero^talk 06:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero0000 wants to remove a quote from a legitimate source, for a reason I still haven't fully comprehended. The book is a legitimate source. No one is under an obligation to provide a scan of the book - you can pick it up in the library. The NYT quote effectively provides a strong support for the quote so I think it's good - thank you. The old version said that the quote was in response to Eichmann's letter, while the current version said it's in response to letters, which is more accurate, and is what I recall from the book. Regardless, I have no problem if the article says it's in response to Vera. The quote applies well to all situations - its use is metaphorical (literally it wouldn't make sense unless he wrote it to Eichmann himself and Eichmann's mother was still alive). But again I don't mind. Zero0000 has tried unfortunately disingenuously to distract the argument in order to remove the quote completely because in his words it's "an anecdote", an "anecdote" important enough to appear in the autobiographic/biographic diary of the president, and make headlines in "Yediot Ahronot" at the time, and apparently appear in NYT according to Zero0000 himself. The quote will remain. You may tweak it to support NYT's version that it was intended for Vera. Amoruso (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you say "the quote was written in connection to letter of clemency" (your edit summary, my emphasis). Not in a letter of clemency? And your text has now changed from one reply to "replies". Was it one or more than one? Given your history of copying from intermediate sources, even neo-nazi web sites, we are entitled to see something more than your inconsistent recollections. Zero^talk 06:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Zero, let's not mention users' histories, since it will reveal your motives for removing legitimate sources. If I recall it is you who regularly quoted from neo nazi websites as well as Hamas websites etc. Anyway, I've confirmed through an Israeli source [3] that this was written on the telegram for Vera. I will make the change. The context is that this was all in the same two days. It was in support for the clemency request by Robert Servatius after the Court's decision of May 29. On May 31 the Presisdent wrote these words and denied the clemency and Eichmann was executed that night. I'll make the changes.Amoruso (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

as you can see several sources, like Channnel 2 News in Israel [4], have said: "הנשיא דחה את הבקשה וכתב בכתב ידו על גבי מסמך הבקשה את דברי הנביא שמואל: "כאשר שכלה נשים חרבך, כן תשכל מנשים אמך"." translation: that it was written on the clemency request. The discrepancy is probably due to Ben Zvi attaching the telegram to the request and sending it all together. Doesn't really matter. Amoruso (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

please corect tittle for "fake " password

it was a humanitarian passport issued in geneva. he obtained it in italy before departure to argentina. so it is not argentinan passport. thank you 71.99.87.208 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Important new source

This article is essential reading. Zero^talk 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That link of yours says : "Sorry! This page cannot be found." LOL. 217.253.29.202 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

True, but maybe this one is an option. Zero^talk 10:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says that Eichmann didn't start deporting Hungarian Jews until his offer to trade Jews for trucks was rejected. Actually Hungarian Jews were being deported throughout the period of Eichmann's talks with Brand.

Willem Sassen tapes?

Shouldn't the interviews he gave to Willem Sassen be mentioned? The Sassen article gives only a very short account and says that the tapes ended up with Eichmann's widow in 1980. What of them now? Have they been published? -- 77.7.159.141 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Clemency

I find it interesting there were Jewish academics appealing for clemency for Eichmann, notably the philosopher Martin Buber: "On 4 June Buber made statement to the New York Times about the execution. In this interview, published the following day, he told Lawrence Fellows, the New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem, that the execution was a 'mistake of historical dimension'. He feared that the act of taking Eichmann's life might have served to expiate the guilt felt by many young persons in Germany over the actions of their elders in the years the Nazis were in power." ... "He repeated his former assertions that he had no pity for Eichmann, nor anything but approval for the trial as such. He also agreed that Jerusalem was the proper place for it, but once more said that it should have been conducted by an international tribunal, and that Israel's role should have been that of accuser, and not of judge." (New York Times, 5 June 1962)

1972. Encounters with Martin Buber, Aubrey Hodes, Pelican Books, pp 132 - 133

196.2.126.173 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cremation

In the section on Eichmann's execution, the article presently states that

Shortly after the execution, Eichmann's body was cremated in a specially designed furnace. The furnace was so hot that no one dared to go near it, and a stretcher on tracks was used to place the body into it.

These details are not included in the source that is noted at the end of the paragraph, which states simply that Eichmann's "body was burned and the ashes were scattered in the waters of the Mediterranean, beyond the territorial boundary of Israel." Moreover, I don't really understand the significance of these details. Aren't crematoria generally exceedingly hot as it is? Why would an even hotter one need to be "specially designed" for Eichmann? If the details are true, then answers to these questions should be included in the article. I am, however, skeptical about their veracity, particularly since the remark that "no one dared go near it" sounds like too much of an attempt at quasi-literariness. -198.96.2.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

I agree, it is not good the way it is now. A better source for the cremation is [5]. Zero^talk 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The incorrect Eichmann's infobox "military person"

Adolf Eichmann was a "Para-military person" (as a officer of SS, a part of the Nazi Party), and no a "military person", a soldier of the Wehrmacht, the German Defence Forces (w.o. the Waffen-SS, a combat branch of the SS - became the de facto the fourth branch of the Wehrmacht). Although the SS was a Nazi Party's paramilitary organization, autonomous and existed in parallel to the Wehrmacht. --Alex F. (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 23 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mengele

The section on Mengele seems out of place. The only thing tying it to Eichmann is that the agent who apprehended Eichmann said that if he had been their sooner he could have caught Mengele. I think this could be summed up in a sentence in the main section on capture, rather than having its own section. If there is a further connection that I'm not aware of, please let me know, in which case we should expand the section to include the more relevant details. —Zujine|talk 18:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Zero^talk 23:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

POV commentary about the movie

"2007 film Eichmann, dramatizing Eichmann's interrogation, and downplaying his role in the Holocaust"

This commentary sounds very biased. It should be removed or rewritten more neutrally (who claims that his Holocaust role in the movie is downplayed?). 5.39.139.206 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment is backed up by a citation; The Eichmann Trial by Deborah Lipstadt, page 178. The book is available as a snippet-view on Google. -- Dianna (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My objection is that the sentence sounds like it was taken out of context from a film critic's review (or in this case, from a book). I wanted to know more about this downplaying and historical inaccuracy in the movie, so I went to the movie's page, but there was nothing there. I think the sentence should be further elaborated or taken out. You can't just just say "the movie sucks" and put Ebert in the references, it is like forcing someone's interpretation of the movie as an art on the reader. 5.39.139.206 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand. I will edit the article to show that this is Lipstadt's opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Date of death

This has been brought up before (see Archive 1) but not adequately addressed. As far as I know, sources based on eye-witness accounts say that Eichmann was hanged after midnight, i.e. on June 1. For example the chaplain Hull states 12:02am. The book of Casarani, while not stating an actual time of death, says that it was scheduled for midnight but there was a technical problem with the apparatus that caused a delay. What sources of similar quality exist for May 31? Zero^talk 11:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There being no reply, I'll make the change. Zero^talk 08:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The change looks fine to me. I wish I could help more, but there's no books available locally on this topic. -- Dianna (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Profession of Lothar Hermann

There is something gone wrong in the sentence addressing Lothar Hermann's correspondence with Fritz Bauer (a German judge and prosecutor). Lothar Hermann was not a “German Jewish lawyer who had fled to Argentina ” but a “German ex-pat and survivor of the Holocaust who had fled to Argentina . . . ”

Citation from the source mentioned above: Eichmann’s undoing began in Argentina after the daughter of Lothar Hermann, a German (and Jewish) ex-pat and survivor, started dating his son.

“She begins dating a young man named Nick.” Lipstadt paused. “Eichmann.” With Hermann’s tip, German-Jewish lawyer Fritz Bauer and Israeli operatives sniffed out Eichmann, who had changed his name to Ricardo Klement.

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The source you provide does not back up the edit you made, which said "Lothar Hermann (1901–1974), a German Holocaust survivor, (son of a Jewish cattle dealer from Quirnbach/Westerwald, Germany), who had fled to Argentina in 1937". -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to your argument, but in my statement above I only refer to the current version of the wikipedia on Adolf Eichmann. The web source I provided above is to make clear that it was Fritz Bauer who was a German judge and prosecutor, but not Lothar Hermann! Did you get my point? Please compare with this sentence:

Also instrumental in exposing Eichmann's identity was Lothar Hermann, a German Jewish lawyer who had fled to Argentina after escaping from Dachau concentration camp, where Eichmann had been an administrative officer at one time.

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bauer was a lawyer. I don't find any good source saying that Hermann was a lawyer too, and the citation given for that sentence (Lipstadt, p11) doesn't say that he was. So we will remove that. Hermann was not a Holocaust survivor either, since he left Europe before there was a Holocaust. Lipstadt also does not say that Eichmann was working at Dachau concentration camp when Hermann was there (for socialist activity). At that time Eichmann worked for Department II/112, but I didn't figure out where that was located. Zero^talk 09:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, neither Lipstadt nor the new source I brought (Cesarani) say the camp was Dachau, so that is gone too. Zero^talk 11:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding swiftly. Regarding the profession, the best would be, of course, to contact Liliana Hermann (niece of Silvia, the daughter of Lothar Hermann), who is on a fact-finding mission regarding the history of Lothar Hermann. This is an Argentine website where information is presented about the history of Lothar Hermann, unfortunately without giving detailed references / sources. [6]

In the source below, I found more detailed biographical information about Hermann.

Cited from: Neal Bascomb: Hunting Eichmann: How a Band of Survivors and a Young Spy Agency Chased Down the World's Most Notorious Nazi; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009

Lothar was half-Jewish and ... had been imprisoned at Dachau for socialist activities in 1936. Mindful of the increase in the persecution of the Jews, he had immigrated with his Christian wife to Argentina soon after Kristallnacht.

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hermann was an interesting person, and I wonder if we can find enough material for an article on him. The story of how he was arrested on suspicion of being Mengele is quite extraordinary. Unfortunately that web site does not meet WP:RS. Zero^talk 10:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an attempt to contribute an explanation on how the false designation of Lothar Hermann's profession could have come into use in one of the previous versions of th wikipedia article on Adolf Eichmann.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/an-inside-look-at-israel-s-operation-to-capture-nazi-criminal-adolf-eichmann-1.424275

... Bauer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor, had received the information about Eichmann's location from another German-Jewish lawyer, Lother Hermann, who had immigrated to Argentina during the war.

According to this source, (unfortunately, this website does not allow to identify the author responsible for its content) Lothar Hermann was a "worker"

"... as Lother Hermann, a worker of Jewish descent who fled to Argentina from Germany following his incarceration in the Dachau concentration camp."

http://www.angelfire.com/ab9/wiesenthal/

I found another very interesting message (related to the role Lothar Hermann played in the capture of Adolf Eichmann) in a forum

Citation: The blind refugee's secret, by Yossi Melman

http://forum.fok.nl/topic/816294

... . . Argentine author-journalist Uki Goni focuses on how chance and luck played a key role in the operation, and tries to set the record straight concerning Lother Hermann, who deserves the lion's share of the credit for exposing Eichmann but who did not attain the glory and the gratitude he so richly deserved.

..The source to which Yossi Melman refers is also mentioned in ODESSA: Uki Goni, The Real Odessa: Smuggling the Nazis to Peron's Argentina

--Vulpesvulpes201 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Estimado mi nombre es Ariel y soy esposo de Liliana Hermann, pude ver en la pagina de Adolf Eichmann sobre el tema en discucion sobre si Lothar Hermann era abogado o no. Quiero decirle que no era abogado,el era gestor y tramitaba jubilaciones para Alemanes en Buenos Aires, tenia un buen conocimiento de leyes y no temía a la hora de reclamar por algo justo. Por otro lado ya estamos en condiciones de afirmar que la primera denuncia de Lothar hermann sobre el paradero de Adolf Eichmann fue realizado ante la Embajada de Israel en 1954 simultáneamente con la DAIA organizaciones que representa políticamente a la comunidad judía en Argentina quien fue la responsable de amenazar a Lothar por mucho tiempo, incluso fue la que invento la causa para confundirlo con josef Menguele en 1961 luego que escribiera a Israel cansado de tantas mentiras que le dieron honores a Simon Wiesenthal un gran mentiroso, Hermann fue torturado y amenzado por 5 agentes del mossad , 2 de alemania Federal y un alto directivos de DAIA que tambien era agente del mossad Gregorio Schurmann.Tambien me gustaria informarlo que el sr Harel fue un gran mentiroso e invento muchas cosas sobre la familia hermann , un romance de Silvia con Klauss algo totalmente falso y el hijo de Eichmann jamas visito la casa de hermann ,todo es una gran mentira, imagine que ni la operación garibaldi fue verdad. Estamos trabajando en el libro para contar la verdad y desenmascarar toda la operación basándonos en documentos desclasificados en Argentina , Alemania,Israel y Estados Unidos. gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arushko (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Proffered immunity

I find no reference for the statement that the former high ranking Nazis were offered "immunity and safe conduct". Six, at least, was told that he risked arrest for war crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Six#Retirement.Joel Mc (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes they were refused entry to Israel with one or two exceptions. I'll fix this, I'm just slow. Zero^talk 12:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Landsman writes: "Experts and other potential witnesses were intimidated from appearing on behalf ot the defendant. The prosecution made it abundantly clear that Nazi war criminals who entered Israel would be arrested and prosecuted. Attorney General Hausner specifically declared that propose defense witnesses, including Otto Winkelman,..., would be arrested on sight." (Crimes of the Holocaust: The Law Confronts Hard Cases By Stephan Landsman, p.65)--Joel Mc (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful update by Diannaa as of 17:53, 6 October 2013

In revision: Revision as of 17:53, 6 October 2013 Diannaa it is claimed: "His poor school performance resulted in his father withdrawing him from the Realschule and enrolling him in the Höhere Berufsfachschule für Wirtschaftsinformatik vocational college"

Wirtschaftsinformatik? Before WWII? Really?

The whole update is huge, contains many facts, but this one alone makes it very doubtful that any of the updates are in fact true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 05:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is odd. Such a school exists now but was founded in 1984. Zero^talk 10:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It was correct except for the name of the school. Should be Höhere Bundeslehranstalt für Elektrotechnik, Maschinenbau und Hochbau. I fixed it. Zero^talk 11:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, Zero0000. "Höhere Bundeslehranstalt für Elektrotechnik, Maschinenbau und Hochbau" agrees with the quoted source. Sorry for the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bascomb's book

From what I've seen it is a journalistic (as opposed to scholarly) book that is rather sensationalist and probably not reliable for details. Claims that it makes which are not otherwise supported shouldn't be added as fact. I noticed "a series of monasteries that had been set up by the Catholic Church as safe houses" — this is extremely far from being proved. It is well known that there were monasteries which served as safe-houses (esp. for Catholic criminals from the Balkans), but the suggestion that the Catholic Church (implying the church hierarchy rather than local church people) set them up for the purpose of hiding people like Eichmann is highly disputed. Does Bascomb offer any proof of this assertion? We need to state it as Bascomb's opinion, if at all. Zero^talk 04:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cesarani states (page 208) that Eichmann stayed in a series of monasteries and convents but does not mention the Catholic Church as being the organisers. He says some of the safe houses were under the auspices of Father Anton Weber of the St Raphael Community in Bavaria, but does not mention the Catholic Church as a whole. Levy (page 136) also mentions Weber. I have amended the prose, see what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adolf Eichmann/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Diannaa

This is an important article about a fascinating (and horrifying) individual. I will begin this review shortly. It may take a little longer than most reviews, due to the detail required. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up issues as I find them, allowing you to work on them as I review, if you like. First off, let me say that the prose is excellent. Far beyond the "clear and concise" standard for GAs, the sections I've examined are up to our exacting FA standards. I've made a few copy-edits on very minor issues, and I'll continue to do so; as always, feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of my changes.

Resolved issues

I have some questions about Jewish emigration as described in the "Early career" section. Most glaringly, one paragraph says "By 1939 around 250,000 of Germany's 437,000 Jews emigrated", but a different paragraph claims "By the time he left Vienna in May 1939, nearly 100,000 Jews had legally left the country [Austria] (far more than had departed from Germany)". How do we reconsile that? The statistics refer to two different time periods. More Jews left Austria during the period Eichmann was there than left Germany in the same period. The statistic from Longerich and Evans refers to the period 1933 to the end of 1939. I am removing the phrase "far more than had departed from Germany"; it's confusing and unneccessary. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) When the text says "Eichmann was assigned to Vienna to help organise Jewish emigration in Austria", that should probably say "from Austria", since they weren't coming in. Y This is more for my benefit, but... I don't understand why Hagan refused to increase Jewish emigration via the Haavara Agreement. Everything else in the article indicates that the Nazis wanted as many Jews as possible to leave Germany. The stated reason for Hagan's refusal is that "the resulting transfer of Jewish capital to Palestine would strengthen the Jewish presence there, which was contrary to the interests of the Reich", but that's confusing, since the Haavara Agreement "forced [Jews] to give up most of their possessions to Germany before departing" according to that article. And since Palestine was a British possession, it's not obvious to me why the Reich would be displeased with Jewish presence there. Maybe I'm just not understanding what Germany's goals were here. The Nazis were opposed to an independent Jewish state being created in the area. I will re-word. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Perfect! All these issues have been cleared up. – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Hatnotes like "Main article: Nisko Plan" should really only be at the top of sections. It shouldn't be in the middle of a section, but it really doesn't belong at the top of the World War II section either. You could create a Nisko Plan section and put it at the top of it, or you could just link to Nisko Plan in text and omit the hatnote. Y Fixed. The "West German government attempts to influence the trial" section is problematic. It uses a single source (a Spiegel article) which is not used in the rest of the article. It smacks of recentism: a sensational 2011 article reveals questionable government activities, and several people want to make sure the information is included prominently in Wikipedia. But it's only tangential to Eichmann; it more concerns Globke and Vogel. I don't doubt that it's true, but it seems like undue weight to give it its own section, with more of the article devoted to it than to Eichmann's schooling or his wife. In my view, the entire section should be omitted, with perhaps a brief summary included in the "trial" section, if you think that would be valuable. Y I think it's best to remove it. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) The "BND and CIA information" has similar problems. I see from the article's history that it was originally added to strongly suggest that the U.S. had known where Eichmann was hiding and did nothing; the sources were newspaper articles from 2006 with titles like "C.I.A. Knew Where Eichmann Was Hiding" and "Documents show post-war CIA covered up Nazi war crimes". But the impact was weakened with the addition of clearer facts, official statements, and a later peer-reviewed assessment, and now the section is rather difficult to follow. The reader's experience is something like this: "Here's a bizarre statement in an obscure 1958 memo. Here's a claim that this means the U.S. covered for Eichmann. Here are some damning and attention-getting facts about modern governments collaborating with ex-Nazis. Here are alternating statements leading me to believe that the issue is serious or not serious." But really, in terms of an article on Eichmann himself, this deserves a footnote at most. It doesn't deserve an entire section with the article's second-longest block quotation. As above, I would recommend omitting the entire section, and perhaps briefly summarizing the info in a preceding section.Y I have snipped out the two sections. I think both of these can safely be omitted as they're only peripherally about Eichmann. I have made a replacement paragraph and parked it at User:Diannaa/sandbox to think about, but the article is probably better off without this content. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) It's too bad we don't have a good, English-language map of the General Goverment and Nisko, showing its relation to Vienna, Ostrava, and Katowice. (The current map, in German, shows the General Government, but it's difficult to tell what we're looking at.) Do you think it would be better to use File:General Government (1942).svg? It's clear and more comprehensible... but it shows the region in 1942, and it seems to have expanded Eastward by then. Of course, the best option would be to convince one of our map-makers to create something ideal, but that's not required for GA status. Barring that, is the map we're using the best choice? I have found an alternative in English! File:General Government for the occupied Polish territories.png. See what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) It isn't perfect—it includes Galizien, and it doesn't clearly label Nisko—but I think it's the best we have. Thanks for finding it! – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) When the text says "The people they were sent to rescue refused to leave, but they did assist...", the reader might not know whether that last "they" refers to the 10,000 ethnic Germans, or to Eichmann's commando squad. Y reworded. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) A recent edit by Cliftonian split a long paragraph in the lead, and it now has five paragraphs. I'm really not sure what the best way to handle this is. I think the lead is an appropriate length and is well written, but WP:LEAD says a lead "should normally be no more than four paragraphs", but that it "should avoid lengthy paragraphs". These aren't unbreakable rules, but I've never passed a GAN with five paragraphs before. Look over the lead and see what you can do. I think we can combine the last two paragraphs, as the material all concerns post-war events. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) The statement "In May 2007, a student..." seems out of place to me. Consider making that fact a part of footnote [c], and moving that footnote to the mention of the "humanitarian passport", above. Y The reference to "Eichmann's brother Otto" surprises me, though no change may be needed. Otto Adolf Eichmann had a brother also named Otto? Are you sure this is correct? (I don't have access to Walters.) Walters shows the brother's name as Otto on page 282. Levy lists an Otto among Eichmann's brothers on page 149 and Cesarani on page 19. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Oh okay, well thanks for doublechecking for me. – Quadell (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC) It seems to me that the "International dispute over capture" section, like other sections previously mentioned, suffers from undue weight. (I wonder if there shouldn't be a separate Trial of Adolf Eichmann article (currently a redirect) or Capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann article that includes all these details?) I don't think the section needs to be fully removed, but perhaps the material could be shortened somewhat and added as a final paragraph of the "Capture in Argentina" section? For instance, the obviously false claim by Meir made directly after the announcement is not notable in Eichmann's biography, and the details of Israel and Argentina negotiations could be summarized in a single sentence. What do you think? The trial was a really big deal and I think we should have an article on it someday. For now I have shortened this material and added it to the section above as suggested. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC) The "Impact" section seems to concern the impact of the trial and exectution, not the impact of Eichmann himself, and so should be a subsection of "Trial". Done. Do you think the section header should be changed to "Impact of the trial" or left as-is? -- Diannaa (talk) Either would be fine, though I'd be inclined to leave it as "Impact", personally. – Quadell (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Should the initial four paragraphs of the "World War II" section be their own subsection? And should it be called "Central Office for Jewish Emigration", "Management of Jewish deportation", "Rise in leadership", "Expulsion of Jews from Poland", or something else altogether? I have used "Transition from emigration to deportation". Let me know what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Robert Servatius did have a doctorate, but so did nearly everyone involved with the trial; I don't think the "Dr" prefix is warranted. Y In any article on a controversial subject (especially one that involves Israel or Palestine in any way), there are likely to be "gotcha" statements that were added mainly to make one group, country, or organization look bad. I set a high bar for these—not that we should protect any organization from criticism, but that we should keep the article focused and curtail any attempt to hijack an article of this importance for other purposes. (I think we're on the same page here.) So it's fair to mention that the Holocaust killed 5-6 million Jews, even if Eichmann didn't do all that himself, and even though that statement makes Nazi Germany look bad, because it's crucial to understand the impact of the Holocaust in order to fully understand Eichmann. On the other hand, tangentially-related statements that make the U.S. or Germany or Israel or whomever look bad should probably be omitted unless they're crucial to fully understanding Eichmann. I've mentioned several such "gotcha" statements previously, and I'm not sure I'm done rooting them out yet. Please carefully look over paragraph four of "Trial" with this in mind. Yes, we need to understand Eichmann's trial to fully understand Eichmann, and that means understanding irregularities or limitations of the trial itself. But any "gotcha" statements not clearly relevant should be omitted. Related: The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that a separate trial article is warranted. It would certainly be more appropriate to include the "gotcha"-style statements in an article on the trial itself. Even regarding details with no neutrality issues, much of the trial section could be summarized here with less detail, and fully specified it that separate article. After all, Eichmann's entire WWII career is given 1,832 words in this article (including all subsections), while his trial is given 1,977 words (including "Impact" with other subsections). Summary style would really help create balance. (Creating a separate page is not a GA requirement, but merely an idea for improvement.) I am removing paragraph 4 of the Trial section. I have also trimmed a few peripheral details from elsewhere in the section to reduce its length and hopefully create better balance. I don't want to take out too much, as even if we create a sub-article it will likely be really lightly viewed; for example Erich von Manstein has 45,260 hits in the last 90 days and Trial of Erich von Manstein only has 915. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) That's fine. – Quadell (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC) The "See also" section should usually not contain articles that are linked in the body. History of the Jews in Hungary is already used as a section hatnote, and Rudolf Kastner is linked directly, so these shouldn't be in the "See also" section. Further, we need to be careful in the selection of which articles are listed. Why is Emanuel Schäfer included, but not any other prominent Nazis? I would recommend omitting, since he's already listed at List of SS personnel. Y There seem to be a few more "gotcha" statements regarding the films Un spécialiste and Eichmann. Only include those if you find them necessary to fully understand the man. (Articles on the films themselves should fully explore the controversy, but this should only be the place for such debate when it's particularly relevant.) Y Removing section; see below. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC) The "Books and films" section should really be about all of the most important books and films about Eichmann. Currently, the only entries are about his abduction and trial. We should not list every book or film about WWII that mentions Eichmann, obviously, but if we keep this section then it should have the most important books or films about him in any period of his life. Other than the books used as sources, that's really all there is. I think the section can be removed altogether per WP:MILPOP – that's the way I am going to go. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC) I don't suppose the section was strictly necessary, so I suppose it's fine to undo the Gordian Knot that way. – Quadell (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Optional: In my opinion, the most recent copy-edits to the lead improved some aspects, but reduced the quality of the prose in other ways. There are many sentences with too many "comma-where", "comma-and", and "comma-which" clauses strung together. (See in particular the first two sentences of the second paragraph.) This is not a problem for GA status, but if you intend to submit this for featured status (and I hope you do!), you may want to give the lead another look. I have partially reverted the amendments to the lead (Sorry Cliftonian, I agree that some aspects were better before). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, the current lead is the best synthesis of both your edits. – Quadell (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (See also: Cliftonian's point about Eichmann's marriage, below.)Y

I'm very pleased with the state of this article. Once the final issues are resolved, I'll be delighted to promote it. I'll put it on hold now, and I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Intrusion by Cliftonian

I hope neither of you mind, but I have made a few minor alterations during the review; nothing major, mostly just formatting, some minor copy-editing and the like. I just had a suggestion to make I thought I might note here: do either of you think it's worth mentioning that Landau, Halevy and Raveh, the three judges at the trial, were all, like Eichmann, German-born? If so, perhaps we might add a footnote mentioning that all three immigrated to Palestine in 1933 after the Nazis came to power. Perhaps not directly relevant but I think it adds an interesting dimension. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true they were all fluent in German and did not have to wait for the translation, which was just as well, as apparently the German→Hebrew translation was dreadful. But these details are probably best left to a separate possible future article about the trial. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, just thought I'd mention it. Great work on the article so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I gotta go to the gym now so if you want to do some more copy edits now is a good time. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad you feel I'm being helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for both your edits and your inputs. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• His wife's name is given in the infobox as Vera and in the body as Veronika; this should probably be consistent (easily rectified by changing the body to say Veronika "Vera" Liebl, if Vera was short for Veronika). Also I presume they remained married until his death? Would be good for the infobox to put that —Cliftonian (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Y fixed

  My name's Quadell, and I endorse this message. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  Amendments complete, thanks so much. Let me know if there's anything that got missed. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Final assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

It is quite a challenge to write a comprehensive, balanced article on such a notorious and important historical figure. I'm proud to have been a part of it, and I hope the article becomes featured some day soon.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is brilliant. The MoS is followed in detail.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is impeccably sourced, and the "References" section is beautifully formatted.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Impressive work was done to make sure the article is free from tangents or focus problems. The article is reasonably comprehensive.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   After much work and thought, I feel this article conforms to our NPOV policy.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems at this time.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Most images are legitimately free, and the non-free lead image is used appropriately. All captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm delighted to promote this article to GA status. Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind words and for your assistance in improving this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Jewishness

According to German-Jewish prof. Dietrich Bronder, Eichmann, a self-hating Jew, was born in Palestine, and his birth certificate was later fabricated, giving Sollingen as his place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is nonsense and so doesn't belong here. Zero^talk 07:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you a bit more specific? Why do you automatically reject the work of a genuine scholar, a professor? "This is nonsense" doesn't sound like a solid argument. We know well, from the famous book of Bryan Mark Rigg - "Hitler's jewish soldiers", that this sort of situations were possible and acctually pretty frequent. This case should be examined more thoroughly by some qualified historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Dietrich Bronder", who may or may not have been a real person, claimed that most leading Nazis were Jewish. It's crap. Zero^talk 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In his book, The Occult Roots of Nazism..., the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke dismisses Bronder's book as "crypto-history" (p. 221) For his definition of crypto-history see: Crypto-history Joel Mc (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And as for Hitler's Jewish soldiers, Rigg is considered a quack and his book nothing but fantasy just as well by modern German scholars. Rigg gives vastly, preposterously higher numbers of German-Jewish Mischlings serving in the Wehrmacht at an age fit to serve than there were even registered Mischlings alive at any age between birth and death in the official 1939 census. Most Mischlings he interviews were either not allowed to serve to begin with or were soon found out and discharged (and in either case were subjected to slave labor from October 1944 onwards). According to the Nuremberg laws, only "1/16 Jews" (i. e. those whose great-grandparents had no more than one Jewish parent) were allowed to apply for "racial examination" (Rassegutachten) to be examined on whether they showed any "Jewish" biological and psychological traits, in order to be declared fit to serve if they appeared "Aryan" enough. Rigg's book is about as reliable as the infamous Hitler diaries hoax. --2.240.202.251 (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of Eichmann's birth name

This article has his birth name as Otto Adolf Eichmann while the following site HistoryPlace.com (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/eichmann-biography.htm)and this site biography.com (http://www.biography.com/people/adolf-eichmann-9285259#awesm=~oEBVVZjHTgUguE) both identify that Eichmann's birth name was Karl Adolf Eichmann with Biography.com identifying "Otto" as an alias he used

220.237.237.170 (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many sources that say his name was Karl Adolf, but they are not very strong sources. The best sources I know of give his name as Otto Adolf. These include the trial report. In his interrogation by the Israeli police he states that his full name was "Otto Adolf Eichmann" but his customary name (Rufname) was Adolf. This is also what his biographer Cesarani, who studied his early life in great detail, says that his name was. So you need something better in order to change it. Zero^talk 13:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Image caption

Several editors seem to want the caption for one of the images to describe its subjects as on their way to "the gas chamber" [7]. However, the image's description page [8] says only, "Hier Kinder und eine alte Frau auf dem Wege in die Todesbaracke (Auschwitz-Birkenau) ... Woman with children in German death camp Auschwitz in Poland during Second World War ... Here, children and an old woman on the way to the death barracks of Auschwitz-Birkenau."

As mentioned in one of my edit summaries, I suppose "Todesbaracke" (literally, death barracks) might be some kind of camp code language for "gas chamber", but if so someone's going to have to point to something explaining that. Otherwise, while one imagines that the gas chambers were the ultimate destination of these doomed souls, I don't see anything to suggest that's where they are bound in this photo. The caption should reflect what the image's own description says, not some enhanced narrative no matter how plausible. Or am I missing something? EEng (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. Changing the caption of an image is OR unless it can be supported by reliable sources. In this case the change is incorrect. "Todesbaracke" was not a name or euphemism for the gas chambers. It was the nickname given to one or more barracks ("living" quarters) with especially appalling reputations. See this plan where Block 11 of the main camp is called the "death barrack". Also this book has some description of a "death barrack". Here and here you can read testimony of female Holocaust survivors who describe being in the "death barrack" at Auschwitz. The "death barracks" description of the photo is used by many eminent sources. So should we. Zero^talk 10:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that the image caption has a disclaimer that "For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme." We are not obliged to use the caption if it is not an accurate depiction of events. 85 per cent of the Hungarian Jews were killed in the gas chambers immediately on arrival in Auschwitz (Steinbacher 2005, p. 109). My opinion is that the caption should say "gas chambers" rather than "death barracks". -- Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The caption as it stands is perfectly plausible, even though your statistic is correct. The original caption is the only evidence we have of what these particular people were doing at that particular moment, and 15% is still a large number of people (and the image caption doesn't say that were Hungarians). We can't just decide for ourselves that a photo shows something different from what it claims to show; that is a textbook example of original research. It isn't any different from intentionally misquoting a book because we think the author got it wrong. Zero^talk 14:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

From the hover text for the (i) at the end of the disclaimer to which Diannaa refers, it's clear that by "original captions" is meant the Nazis' own captions, which this obviously isn't. But I have an idea. Since Mengele was at Auschwitz, let's say they're on they're way to be subjects in a medical experiment. That would be an even better story! EEng (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• First, the original caption stated "una abuela y sus nietos caminando hacia las llamadas "duchas" que en verdad eran camaras de gas", which translates into "a grandmother and her grandchildren walking towards so-called "showers" that really were gas chambers". Also, the entrance to Krema IV and Krema V is the exact same as the picture, plus the picture is displayed on the road to Krema IV. The description for the image has been that the old woman and children are heading to the gas chambers for years, so it's incumbent on those who wish to change the caption to gain consensus first before it's changed. Not edit war to change it. Dave Dial (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Also, as I stated, the picture is blown up and put on the entrance of the road(a 'shortcut to the showers') to Krema IV, the caption for the picture here states: "Auschwitz-Birkenau, women and children deemed "unfit for work" being led unknowingly to Gas Chamber #4 - Yad Vashem Photo Archives, ID Number 31588". Dave Dial (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

By "original caption" you seem to mean what some early version of some Wikipedia article said, which is of zero relevance. I do see that, on the "Scrap book" webpage you linked, that this very photo is part of the display along what was (according to the webpage -- and I believe it) the road to the "showers", but to turn that into "so that means someone's saying that's where these people were going" is exactly the kind of synthesis we're not supposed to do -- connect dot A to dot B to dot C to dot D, so therefore A leads to D. It's a very small point, really. The image would be poignant with no caption at all. But it does not serve history, but rather dishonors it, to knowingly allow ourselves to become instruments by which facts are slowly blurred and rearranged in "reasonable" and "harmless" ways. It's not harmless. It's corrosive. EEng (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, having written the paragraph above, I see Dave Dial's additional post linking to the Yadvashem site, which gives additional information about the image. That changes things. I'm not in a position to evaluate sources in this area of history, but I'm willing to accept that site as reliable. On that basis the image description page should be augmented with this information, thus supporting the desired caption. But this new, supporting source is the justification for the caption -- not "everyone knows" or "it's been that way a long time". EEng (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am with Diannaa and Dave Dial here. I also strongly dislike "consigned", and endorse the comment about edit-warring on a sensitive subject like this. It is better to come to the talk page first, agree an edit, then make it. --John (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In the name of the father...

The name of Eichmann's father is variously given as "Karl Adolf" and "Adolf Karl". As far as I know, the form "Karl Adolf" originated with Hannah Arendt. It is interesting that Stangneth uses it too, but I don't think that is a stronger secondary source than Cesarani, who devotes a large amount of space to Eichmann's family and says it was "Adolf Karl". One could only use Stangneth to displace Cesarani if Stangneth mentions the problem and explains why she chooses as she does. @PlasticOnoMemory: please report on that. In addition, we have a rather strong primary source: Eichmann's police interrogation in Israel: Interrogator: "Vielleicht gehen wir jetzt einen Moment zurueck, wie ist der Name Ihres Vaters?" Eichmann: "Mein Vater hiesst Adolf Karl Eichmann, meine Mutter: Maria Eichmann, geb. Schefferling."[9] Eichmann's statement (what motive was there to lie?) was accepted by the Israeli court.[10][11] You can hear the Israeli judge asking him if he is the son of "Adolf Karl Eichmann" at 1:30 of Part 2 in this video. Incidentally, quite a few mentions of "Karl Adolf Eichmann" in the literature are incorrect references to Otto Adolf (even in US wartime archives). Zero^talk 09:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Amusing but irrelevant: The Hebrew wiki article says "Adolf Karl" but Google translate reports it as "Karl Adolf". Seems even Google want to weigh into this problem ;). Zero^talk 10:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cesarani told me in email that he believes "Adolf Karl" is definite. Zero^talk 15:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I find Cesarani's book to be an excellent resource and agree that we should go with "Adolf Karl". -- Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

born in sarona in templar colony

in the trial testimony it is stated that he was born in the templar colony in sarona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.29.125 (talk • contribs) 06:32, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. What is recorded in the trial testimony is a witness reporting Eichmann claiming to have been born in Sarona while interrogating some Jews. (see here). Eichmann occasionally made this claim but it was a fantasy—he was born in Solingen and grew up near Linz. See here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Trial videotaped

A minor, non-controversial technical point. I came across a reference many years ago mentioning that the actual trial footage was shot entirely in video format. I am wracking my battered brain attempting to remember the original source. It is notable as an early usage of videotaping in creating a visual historical record. I believe "film", the former wording to be imprecise. I dont have the C source to hand so I cannot say what the wording actually is. However C may have just used "film" as shorthand, or he was just using the conventional (still) terminology of the early 1960s for all visual media. VT was not really a widely understood concept until the late 70s or arguably the early 80s to the general public. A minor point, I know, but of some technical note. Thoughts or anyone with additional knowledge of this? Happy to discuss as always. Irondome (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cesarani says film (page 254), but his source While America Watches : Televising the Holocaust says videotape, from the snippets I can see on Google preview. I will order it in on inter-library loan to confirm. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent Diannaa. Sounds the best possible cite to use also as it is the direct source that Cesarani used. Thanks as ever. Irondome (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The film can be seen at USHMM. The long list of technical details includes 'Original Format: 2" Quad'. I'm no expert but I think that refers to an early type of videotape recorder, see Quadruplex videotape. Zero^talk 07:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same source says "Capital Cities Broadcasting Corporation recorded the proceedings of the Adolf Eichmann trial in 1961. The original recording was made on two-inch format videotape." and there is more information about what happened to the original tapes. I think we can consider that source wiki-reliable. Zero^talk 07:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 the additional info is much appreciated. I have a hunch this was probably the most ambitious and lengthy usage of the relatively new Video technology in this time frame. As such it has some technical and historical notability. Thanks to you and User:Diannaa for being so helpful. Cheers all! Irondome (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Arendt

Since Arendt's "banality of evil" is mentioned (unavoidably) it seems logical to also explain that her credibility has been fundamentally questioned - not being present for most of the trial, etc etc. I don't think it's off-topic, particularly. Not mentioning the criticism gives the impression that her 'analysis' is accepted as uncontroversial, or reasonable, when it isn't. zzz (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that she wasn't present should be mentioned, at least (how can she claim to know his character from the trial when she chose not to be present? As many writers have commented.) This is the source I was using, which completely destroys her credibility. I think the criticisms are unavoidable. Google "banality of evil" and it's all criticism, more or less. I don't have a book about Eichmann now, but when I did, it criticised Arendt - for leaving the trial, and for her publicly declared aversion to Jews(!). zzz (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of death

Sometime in 2013 I changed the date of death from 31 May to 1 June with this explanation:

This has been brought up before (see Archive 1) but not adequately addressed. As far as I know, sources based on eye-witness accounts say that Eichmann was hanged after midnight, i.e. on June 1. For example the chaplain Hull (who was present and gives a minute by minute timeline) states 12:02am. The book of Cesarani, while not stating an actual time of death, says that it was scheduled for midnight but there was a technical problem with the apparatus that caused a delay. What sources of similar quality exist for May 31?

The date was soon changed back to May 31 by some anon without explanation. I don't see any reason for not now changing it back, so I will. Zero^talk 08:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It was probably removed because Worldcat has the book labelled as fiction. Can you confirm that it's a non-fiction work? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not fiction, that's a mistake. Also note that Cesarani cites this book repeatedly and describes Hull's role starting on page 316. Stangneth cites the German edition of it too. Zero^talk 00:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann's last words

Eichmann's last words are incorrect. The last page of Chapter XV of Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem accounts his execution where he explicitly states that he was a gottgläubiger (someone who was not a Christian and did not believe in life after death). He went on to say : "After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany. long live Argentina. long live Austria. I shall not forget them.”

121.217.221.57 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanna Arendt was not present and there is no reason to prefer her version over Cesarani's. There can be some differences of translation, too. Zero^talk 23:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I very recently came upon this. http://www.timesofisrael.com/eichmanns-final-barb-i-hope-that-all-of-you-will-follow-me/

This is certainly first hand testimony, from Eitan. The whole article gives some fascinating insights. It is not sufficient for any inclusion in mainspace however. Irondome (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it doesn't contradict Cesarani's version. One was a prepared statement (that I think Cesarani took from the book of cleric William Hull who was present; I can check that), the other was something Eichmann allegedly muttered the moment before he died. Both can be true. But also, I can't see Rafi Eitan as a reliable witness; deception has been part of his job description for most of his life. Zero^talk 23:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both are probably true. Cesarani's account has the ring of the last statements of the Nuremberg condemned. I do not see what Eitan has to gain really at this late stage. It seems a bit late for deception, and what would be the point? In any event, it has not the weight to be included in mainspace. Irondome (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After looking into this a bit more, I think that Eitan's "I hope that all of you will follow me" is just a report of the sentence that Cesarani has as "We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men." There are multiple language translations here: Eitan's version that we have is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of what Eichmann said in German. Incidentally, here is a comparison of Cesarani's version with Hull's version. Cesarani cites Hull as well as the report of a German journalist who was one of the four journalists present.

Cesarani (p321): "Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family and my friends. I am ready. We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men. I die believing in God."

Hull (p159): "Eichmann called out in German: 'Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family and my friends. I had to obey the laws of war and my flag. I am ready.' Later: 'Gentlemen, we shall meet again soon, so is the fate of all men. I have believed in God all my life and I die believing in God.' "

Zero^talk 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the multiple translation issue is the main factor here. Thanks for digging further User:Zero0000. Irondome (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann's nationality

It lists his nationality as having been of Nazi Germany, which makes sense, but he wasn't actually born there between 1933 and 1945, so it wouldn't have actually been such at the time of his birth, but would have been of the German Empire. It wasn't "Nazi Germany" at the time of his death, either. Perhaps there is a better way to represent Eichmann's nationality? Maybe just an unlinked "Germany"? I can't really think of anything else, so I am open to any ideas. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany isn't a nationality. It's a description. I don't believe it was even officially called that, since "Nazi" refers to a political party (and the word Nazi wasnt used in Germany, but never mind that). His nationality should just be German and perhaps his country of birth changed to German Empire. freshacconci talk to me 00:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

An interesting point. I would suggest an additional "Allegiance" line, with Nazi Germany as the flag. But I would argue that his nationality covers his political and ideological alignment very acutely at the moment. He was operating as an official of Nazi Germany, and he embraced its perverted doctrines to an extreme degree. Your suggestions I would say are far too convoluted for article clarity in their present form. Nazi Germany is many times referred to as National Socialist Germany by many leading Nazi figures in speeches and writings. Its official status as N.S.Germany seems to have been widely accepted in Germany. The party and state morphed into one in German consciousness, especially among the young. Some foreign descriptions use this term, as I believe can be dug out as sources, especially dating from the early years. Irondome (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying he was German isn't convoluted. It's actually the simplest solution. And as Dustin V.S. says, he wasn't part of Nazi Germany his whole life, so that's just confusing. Actually, the simplest thing would be to see what other articles do. I looked at Himmler's and Goering's articles and they seem to bypass it altogether by not stating a nationality, just birthplace and place of death, plus party allegiance. freshacconci talk to me 01:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I like those examples. I would support a change to fall in line with those articles. His early life is in mainspace anyway. People should read the article, not infoboxes :) Irondome (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox person, the |nationality= parameter should not be used when it is already made clear by the place of birth what the person's nationality is. I completely removed the parameter. Dustin (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Good edit. Looks better. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann Before Jerusalem

"[Bettina Stangneth's] new portrait of Eichmann is very different from Arendt's..She reveals a skilled social manipulator with a pronounced ability to reinvent himself, an ideological warrior unrepentant about the past and eager to continue the racial war against the Jews.", Saul David, Review, The Daily Telegraph, 29 Nov 2014. It may be worth someone's while to read this book and cite it. Budhen (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm about 1/2 through reading it. Zero^talk 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you recommend it User:Zero0000? It may not be too late to ask my significant other to get it for me as a new year present. She is aware of my rather bleak reading preferences. She is more of the A bear called paddington literary school. She may have her priorities right. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a fascinating book that I definitely recommend. A large part of the book is an account of the Sassen "interviews" which in fact were no such thing. Sassen hosted a long series of group discussions in his house, attended by Eichmann as well as by a lot of other fugitive Nazis and sympathisers, using their real names. They discussed everything to do with the holocaust, including working through books about it page by page. It wasn't always cordial, either. The discussions were recorded and typed up; over 1000 pages survive as well as many of the tapes. Eichmann also wrote a large amount himself, most never published. Zero^talk 04:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated. Do you have the ISBN? Regards Irondome (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

9781847923233 or 9781847923257 . It was earlier published in German and there is a second German edition too. Zero^talk 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eichmann's address in Buenos Aires

The address where Eichmann lived at Buenos Aires is listed in this article as "14 Garibaldi Street (now 4261 Garibaldi Street)". However, on the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site in the article "Wiesenthal Center Marks Eichmann Capture in Argentina Fifty Years Later" ( http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=8407623#.VMkvJi7iueI ) the address is listed as "6061 Garibaldi Street". Recent photographs of the adress are included in the article. When you confirm this address with Google Maps Streetview, the location and surrounding buildings match the photographs on the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Amsterdave (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Trial publicity

The previous source which states that Israel wished for publicity for the trial, which is online and can be read, is in opposition to the assertion that the authorities had to be persuaded that filming was permissible. Unlike the former source, I cannot see the relevant passages that form the basis of this claim. Please can you reproduce the original material which covers this alleged reluctance for filming. Best way to clear it up it seems.I would like to see involvement from other interested editors, so WP:CONSENSUS can be reached. This is how WP works. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The new source Concentrationary Memories: Totalitarian Terror and Cultural Resistance (Google link) says on page 60 that Ben-Gurion was concerned that the harsh lighting required for filming the proceedings would turn the trial into a bit of a circus. However, the new videotape technology did not require floodlights to be set up and had the added bonus of being more suitable for use in television broadcasts (page 61). It says at the top of page 62 that Ben-Gurion and members of his gov't were keen to give the trial extensive mass media coverage. It says on page 63 that Fruchtman "managed to convince" them to permit the videotaping. The next paragraph states that the network signed a contract giving them exclusive rights to videotape the trial. So the source does indeed say that the Israelis had to be convinced, but I don't think that's the most salient point, as the remainder of the material emphasizes how keen the Israeli government was that there should be massive and worldwide media coverage. We have to be selective in what we include; not everything that can be sourced should be put in the article. If Fruchtman had a Wikipedia article I would favour including his name, but without it, not so much. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of peacocking and some self-publicity in the wording of the source. the importance of usage of film/video "had not been clearly perceived" (Page 63) is a long way from outright opposition based on technical or moral grounds. There appears to have been no evidence of any sustained resistance put up by the Israeli Authorities in the source. It sounds like Fruchtman was pushing at an open door here. I think it is quite ambiguous in terms of wording. I largely agree with the bulk of your argument however, User:Diannaa. I would like to see F's notability established also. Not having a WP article on him does not help. Irondome (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The lack of a simple "let me get back to you" from the original editor who began this I find frustrating also. A quick note just to touch base would not take 30 seconds. I am afraid I have issues with eds who do not communicate when asked to, repeatedly. It does not help credibility. Irondome (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, is that a reference to me? If I'm not following protocols, it isn't out of intent. It's that I'm entirely new to this business and have no idea what the norms are. I confess that I'm still confused about the difference between reading that Fruchtman won America's top tv journalism award on the awards page and reading it on Wikipedia.- Galena 64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena64 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats ok. Good to hear from you anyway. So write an article about him! Go for it. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm really busy and I'm a historian by trade, which means I don't like to write articles unless I'm absolutely sure that all the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed, and that takes lots of time. Even the two or three paragraph bios I've written for encyclopedias are really time consuming. But as I understand Wikipedia rules, the winning of a Peabody more than meets the requirement for a bio, so I don't see the difference between reading that info on Wikipedia and reading it on the awards page.-- Galena64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena64 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Mr Fruchtman would meet WP:NOTABLE so an article just needs to be created. I've 2 articles in the works but it's time and research as you say. I understand wanting to get it right. But WP is an ongoing work in progress, so others would contribute. I hope you stick around :) Regards Irondome (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure an article on Fruchtman is a good idea, but as you say, he meets the notable requirement, so why is it an issue in terms of this article whether or not he has a Wikipedia page? Seriously, I still don't get that. But as far as I can understand our original discussion, we seem to be in agreement that he meets the "notable" requirement, even if he doesn't have a page. The other editor said "I largely agree with the bulk of your argument," so what obstacles still remain to reworking the opening of that paragraph along the lines that I originally suggested? More evidence that the door wasn't largely open, as the other editor seemed to suggest? -- Galena64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena64 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: I am not in favour of including Fruchtman by name as it's off-topic for this article, which needs to focus on Eichmann himself. I think the present wording is fine. The information would be appropriate to include in an article about the trial (another article which we don't at present have, and hopefully someone will write it someday). -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I certainly named him in relation to the UK television film The Eichmann Show. He seemed quite pivotal in that, although it was just a fictional re-telling, of course. Did Ben-Gurion appreciate who he was dealing with? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that DGB may have had other, more pressing concerns on his mind at the time, Martin. However, this just reinforces the need for us to have an article on Mr. Fruchtman, IMO. Also the concept of an article dealing with the contemporary (1961) sub-issues of the trial seems increasingly attractive. Material like this would very comfortably fit there, as would artistic re-tellings of the trial in film or on TV. This article concentrates on Eichmann. His trial is just a part of the whole dark story. I am attracted to the idea of separate articles. Irondome (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Who needs Hollywood contacts when you've got a direct booking service. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In answer to one of the questions above, a bit of googling shows that Fruchtman had already done a film with Ben-Gurion. A bit more googling shows that he married the niece of Ben-Gurion's justice minister, Pinchas Rosen. But I really don't have anything more to say at this point, so whatever you guys come up with is fine with me-- galena64

That's all very intriguing. Amazing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I think an article on Mr. Fruchtman would be very valuable. Irondome (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit more googling shows that Ben-Gurion really didn't approve of television in general, which gives general support to the source that kicked this whole discussion off-- galena64

Probably wasnt a telly addict, but a link would be useful to support that. For general interest. As Israel showed TV coverage (based on article sources) it seems DBG's prejudice against TV was overruled. Just how and who by, and the extent of his opposition, would be interesting to explore. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yoram Peri , Telepopulism: Media and Politics in Israel, 20-21, for Ben-Gurion's dislike and its effects. “it is doubtful whether there is another case of a democratic state in which one man was able to prevent the introduction of the cultural artifact that is so symbolic of the second half of the twentieth century.” Again, the only immediate relevance of this for me is it's support for the accuracy of the source I originally cited and the issue raised by the first person of the extent to which Fruchtman was knocking at an open door.-- galena64

Time of Eichman's death

This has been discussed before. Please look at the subject talk page, the time of death thread, and continue the discussion if you have new thoughts or ideas. Your colleague, Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please give me good information about where to read relevant information, because nothing convincing was available at that place nor in the archive files.

If you do not agree with the "1 June" date, why do you leave that date in the infobox and on the first line of the article ?

Maybe it would be better to carry on that discussion on Eichmann's talk page.

Regards. --Gkml (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I suggest a new discussion thread, highlighting any concerns about contradictions with the timing in the article there. You raise a good point if there are inconsistencies in the text. I will participate of course. Merci for coming to discuss on my page. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome:, I transfer this short discussion thread to that place because it may be of more use. Since our last exchange, I've seen that Cliftonian did that edit, which is satisfactory to me. Best regards from France, not far from Crécy nor Azincourt. --Gkml (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Folks, we can't have the bizarre situation that the text says one thing but has a footnote saying that the text is wrong. The evidence from the best sources is that Eichmann died a few minutes into June 1. Does anyone deny that? Zero^talk 09:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, here is what the eyewitness Hull says. At 11:55, Eichmann was cuffed and with Hull leading the way (plus guards of course) he started the walk towards the execution chamber. Shortly the chief warden called out for them to walk slower, then soon another guard asked them to stop because the apparatus was not ready. So they stood waiting in the corridor. Then at 11:59pm they were asked to continue. When they reached the execution chamber, Eichmann went in while Hull went to a nearby room for "one minute". Then Hull was called into the execution chamber, where he made a last attempt to convince Eichmann to accept Jesus Christ, which Eichmann ignored. Then the press and officials were called in. Eichmann made his speech, then the lever was pulled at 12:02am. It really isn't possible to get a more definite source than this. Zero^talk 10:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have rephrased slightly, retaining the footnote I added earlier, to say the execution was on 1 June. The footnote explains that it was supposed to be at midnight at the end of 31 May, but because of the brief delay was actually a few minutes into 1 June. I hope this is okay with everyone. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Irondome, Cliftonian, and Zero0000:, considering that difference of versions, do not you think that "date of death" in Persondata (after line 373) should be put to 1 June 1962. Thanks for your opinion. Regards. --Gkml (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing Nazi policies on the Jews

The article currently states: "As the Nazis began the invasion of the Soviet Union [meaning Poland?] in 1941, their Jewish policy changed from emigration to extermination." I personally appreciate Wikipedia's academic boldness to point out that the original policy was one of emigration, per the Wannsee Protocol, in agreement with the actual text. With that said, assuming there was a policy change (and it certainly looks like there was based on my general understanding of those times), surely some document can be furnished to exemplify if not (one hopes) solidly found this assertion? Thank you.

Johnpfmcguire (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The invasion of Poland was in 1939, while 1941 was the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Wannsee Conference of that year outlined the final solution for Europe's Jewish population, which historical consensus agrees was extermination, not emigration, and of course, the historical record shows that is exactly what happened. The question of whether they planned it at Wannsee or not has been historically resolved, so stating so is not really academic boldness, as it is mainstream academic consensus. Perhaps the sentence could be sourced better; certainly there is no shortage of reliable sources for that sentence. freshacconci talk to me 17:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede is too long

Surely this can be condensed? The main body should contain the more detailed information. 98.67.191.150 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine the way it is. It is almost identical to the version that passed GA review back in 2013. WP:Lead states that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview" and "should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". It needs to cover all the main points in the article without going into too much detail. Many readers will look at nothing but the lead, so it needs to be comprehensive. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adolf Eichmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6700861.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407101449/http://www.archives.gov.il:80/NR/exeres/C53E7207-EE4E-48D2-9D00-0D029E4A05A0,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published to http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/exeres/C53E7207-EE4E-48D2-9D00-0D029E4A05A0,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt

Some time back I added a citation needed to this article. The specific statement I wanted a citation for is this

"(Eichmann was) one of the major organisers of the Holocaust" - my edit was promptly deleted by an editor who claimed that this was thoroughly cited in the article.

After scanning the article and sources, I still can not find a clear source or reason for this statement. The reason why a mid-level Nazi officer is considered a "major organiser" is not clear to me from any of the detailed discussion in the article.

Hannah Arendt's work is notoriously controversial, but it does raise questions. The article mentions "banality of evil" in passing without any further discussion of the implications of the phrase or the tremendous literature and critiscms it has spawned. But given the existence of such a deeply rooted academic controversy related to the issue of Eichmann, the debate over what Arendt meant (was he a cog in the machine, etc.) - is it fair to treat the characterization of Eichmann as a "major organizer" as uncontroversial and not needing citation or further discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimsystem (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hanna Arendt is not very relevant for the sentence in the introduction, so I'll not comment on her. I tend to agree with you that "one of the major organisers of the Holocaust" is not a good summary. Eichmann was one of the key figures in the execution of the Holocaust, in particular due to his leadership of the transportation side of it, but he was not one of the high-level planners. The sentence as now can lead readers to think that he was one of the Nazi inner circle who planned the Holocaust, which is not correct and especially likely to mislead because it is a common misconception. Eichmann was not senior enough to meet Hitler even once. Perhaps "one of the major organisers of the Holocaust" can be replaced by "one of the main figures in carrying out the Holocaust" or something less clunky? I'd appreciate Diannaa's comments. Zero^talk 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

He was not directly involved in the decision to perpetrate the Holocaust but he organized trains to Auschwitz (including 600,000 Hungarian Jews) in full knowledge of what was happening there. One out of six Jews who died, died at Autschwitz. I think "main organizer" does not over-state what he did, and is appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a quote from Hannah Arendt in the "trial" section that may also be relevant to this discussion in terms of there are other viewpoints but I don't know if you would consider Hannah Arendt WP:UNDUE here in the lead - since she has been so influential I wonder if maybe it would be ok to give her work some acknowledgement in the article. -Seraphimsystem (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There used to be more about Hannah Arendt in the article, but someone took it out as being undue weight. You might consider looking at the version that passed GA: Previous revision of Adolf Eichmann. Arendt was a reporter, not a historian, and her views need to be balanced against those of actual historians such as Bettina Stangneth. Her name is already mentioned 22 times in the article as it stands right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Capture in Argentina - Rafi Eitan and Bascomb

I flagged this for dispute because the cited source (Bascomb 2009) contradicts Rafi Eitan's account which was published in 2008 in Haaretz. Eitan says that Mossad knowingly allowed Mengele to escape. The article says that capturing Mengele would have risked sabotaging the capture of Eichmann, and that they decided capturing Eichmann was more important. It says the agents believed Mengele's absence from his apartment was only temporary, but did not want to risk discovery after they had captured Eichmann. This seems extremely credible, but contradicts the cited information in the article - I was wondering if anyone could double-check the source or clarify this further? One of these accounts must be factually inaccurate, so I wanted to flag it for review, thank you. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have found the article online and am adding something. Mengele was already spending most of his time in Paraguay by 1959, well before the Israeli team arrived, but he still occasionally visited Buenos Aires, as his family was living there. He never returned to Argentina after the Eichmann capture and his family moved back to Germany in December 1960. (Levy 2006, p. 272-273). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Haaretz may have editorialized somewhat. Eitan doesn't say Eichmann was "more important" - the article attributes that to the Avner Shalev, the Chairman of Yad Vashem. I don't know if anyone else thinks that is worth adding. It seems more opinion then historical fact. I am satisfied the section is factually accurate with your add. Seraphimsystem (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation question + Additions to lead

Someone has asked that I use citations consistent with the articles style - I don't know how to cite a website using sfn, can someone please tell me what citation format I should use to cite a website for this article?

Also, regarding reverted additions, the lead is stronger with Hoss' testimony, which is much more damning then his involvement with the train system, in the sense that it is about his role in organizing the Final Solution specifically at Auschwitz, under Himmler's orders, not Heydrich's. If you guys think the content in the article/lead is complete without that information, or the links to Hoss, Himmler Auschwitz then I must defer to consensus, but I am amazed(?) that Auschwitz is not highlighted in the first paragraph, and is buried somewhere near the end of a lengthy lead - given Eichmann's role in the implementation of the Final Solution. I could not see Auschwitz until I scanned for it. I think it should be changed, but I understand some editors here may disagree. Seraphimsystem (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek that the Hoss's testimony does not belong in the lead, and especially does not belong in the opening paragraph of the lead. I have a couple of objections: It's a primary source, and Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on information in secondary sources. I have included the information later in the article, where the mass deportations from Hungary are discussed. But some of Hoss's testimony has been called into question over the years, and some is provably incorrect, so if any editors think the Hoss testimony should be removed altogether I would not object.

It took me half an hour to clean up your edit. Articles that have been promoted to Good Article or Featured Article already meet the standards for compliance with numerous quality criteria, and you need to ensure that your edits are of equivalent quality so that people don't have to clean up after you. There's information on the lead section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and specifics on how to use the short-form Harvard citation templates at Template:Harvard citation documentation. I suggest you start learning how to use citation templates by studying the guide at Wikipedia:Citation templates. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Are law sources the same as primary sources? Law sources seem to be used frequently, mostly in discussions of Nuremburg, or other law cases. I've seen disputes about the reliability of Hoss' memoirs, but not about this part of the Nuremburg testimony? Is Eichmann's involvement in the Final Solution debated by scholars? I would like to read more about that - I tried to include information that I would want as a reader/researcher, but since this isn't covered in the article, I will do my own research.

Thank you for cleaning up the citation, if it took you half an hour, I probably wouldn't have been able to do it myself. Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy page is Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Hoss's own testimony at the Nuremberg Trial is considered a primary source, as it is an account by a person who was directly involved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa, Also, it would not be considered "law sources", only court testimony by the individual, who would be considered a primary source. Kierzek (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As someone who knows much less about Holocaust history then either of the editors above, I would find it valuable if the links provided in the paragraph highlighted the main issues and people involved in the body (Final Solution, Himmler, Auschwitz), somewhere in the first paragraph, before Argentina - for me, with my limited knowledge, it was difficult to extract the most significant facts from the body. My intent wasn't to include Hoss' testimony as much as it was to make Eichmann's connection to Himmler, Auschwitz and the Final Solution explicitly clear in the first three sentences. I think it would make the article better, but others have put a lot more work into this article then I have and I will defer to them (and I don't have sources for it in front of me.) Seraphimsystem (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Trial

I am going to put up a separate page Adolf Eichmann Trial as part of Wikiproject Law, so I will be taking down the redirect to this page. Seraphim System (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Diaries

Why no reference to the diaries? They are an important record.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record

Wasn't his capture technically extraordinary rendition? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolf Eichmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203021540/http://law.case.edu/journals/JIL/Documents/%2821%29%20Birn_Darby.pdf to http://law.case.edu/journals/JIL/Documents/%2821%29%20Birn_Darby.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nizkor as external site

This site is a bit unreliable for not correctly recording the trial verbal testimonies. For example in the Session no. 46 we read

A. Apart from the first camp already mentioned in Jadowna, a large camp was established in Jasenovac, where 60,000 people perished, among them 20,000 Jews.

Arnon, the witness, actually said "where 600,000 people perished". Listen it here. The geographical places names are sometimes un-recognisable: Licca instead Lika Ossetz instead Osijek etc--Taribuk (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolf Eichmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402115820/http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/wannsee-conference.pdf to http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/wannsee-conference.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

nationality

Eichmann was austrian not german. [12]--Lirim | Talk 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That source is wrong. Eichmann was born in Germany and the family later moved to Austria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

7 year old manager

It is written: The elder Adolf moved to Linz, Austria in 1913 to take a position as commercial manager for the Linz Tramway So he was 7 years old, very small..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

elder Adolf, i.e. his father. Zero^talk 13:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "Gypsy"

I've come across a number of instances recently of "Gypsy" being replaced with "Roma", because "Gypsy" -- according to the reverting editors -- is a "slur". The problem with this is twofold: (1) Not many people know who the "Roma" are, as opposed to those who know who "Gypsies" are; and (2) "Gypsy" is not a slur. As our article Romani people points out both "Roma" and "Gypsy" are simply colloquialisms, and neither is an insult. "Gypsy" is one of those cases of geographical misidentification that happen throughout history. Just as the indigenous people of North America became known as "Indians", because Columbus thought he was in India, the Romani people became known as "Gypsies" because people thought they came from Egypt. That's not an insult, it's a simple misunderstanding.

If "Gypsy" is to be done away with, I'd next propose that we get rid of "Dutch" as well, since it, too, is the result of a misunderstanding: people from the Netherlands are not "Deutsch", i.e. German. But, as always, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

At the very least, if "Roma" is used in place of "Gypsy", it should be explained by way of a parenthetical ("Gypsy") so that readers will know what we're referring to. We're here to present information to the reader, and it does no good to provide it in a way they won't understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Capture of Eichmann

A quick search on Google shows that the 'Capture of Eichmann' throws up 277,000 results. The term 'Kidnap of Eichmann' produces 27,000. Kidnap is a very precise legal term, and does not appear appropriate here. Please provide sources which show academic consensus that 'Kidnap' is the most widely used term. Irondome (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, plus we write according to the way in which normal readers will interpret the verbiage used. Kidnap makes it sound like something nefarious was done to a harmless old grampa. EEng 17:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am attempting to AGF with this edit, EEng, but the attempt to remorselessly use the term 'kidnapping' is only a short step from this shit. [13] Irondome (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Now there's a crackpot. [14]. WARNING: VIEWING THIS WEBPAGE MAY CAUSE FLASHBACKS TO THE 1990s. EEng 17:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

FFS noooo! It really does! Irondome (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would consider abduct (kidnap implies ransom) - but it really depends on what the sources prefer for this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The ab part of abduct makes this essentially the same as kidnap. EEng 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

“Captured” vs “Kidnapped”

Changed instances of “captured” with either “kidnapped” or “abducted,” to more accurately describe the circumstances of Eichmann’s rendition to Israel. It has been changed back twice with no explanation, other than “Are you kidding,” or “Are you trying to be provocative.” If you don’t like the edit, actually explain why your choice of words is better or more accurate.

For non-military usage, “captured” is a generic term which encompasses many types of taking of a person/people, but normally implies a legal act, whether true or not. A cop can “capture” a fugitive by arresting him, either after witnessing a crime or by executing a warrant. On the other hand, he could just haul in random people, and then if one was found to be a criminal, he could lock him up. Both cases are technically “capturing”; however there is a big difference- one is a legal act, and the other is not. For an illegal act, you shouldn’t use verbiage that implies that it is.

In Eichmann’s case, while he was indeed “captured,” it is more specific, and more truthful, to use terms that explain in exactly what manner he was “captured.” Argentina refused to extradite Nazis as a rule, so Israel resorted to extra-judicial means. Every aspect of Eichmann’s taking was against Argentinian and recognized international law. If Argentina had extradited Eichmann, or if both countries’ forces collaborated under Argentinian law to arrest Eichmann, then “capture,” due to the normal implication, would be a perfectly appropriate term to describe the situation. However, since Israel had its foreign intelligence agency (Mossad) enter a foreign country under false identity, then forcibly abduct one of its citizens, drug him, and sneak him out of the country with him disguised and unable to speak, saying that Eichmann was “captured” is insufficient to describe what actually happened.

While Eichmann was “captured,” more specifically, he was kidnapped/abducted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USNPilot (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your legal analysis is WP:OR. The overwhelming choice of serious sources is captured. And see other reasons above. I note in passing that (as Eichmann himself argued) the death camps were all legally constituted, yet we still call what went on there murder. A mass murderer was captured, not a hapless bureaucrat kidnapped. EEng 18:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. One might OR argue in return that harboring a war criminal is a crjminal act.... What matters is the verbiage in RSes, not editors' opinions.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

EEng describes the position precisely in their post above. As Icewhiz notes in addition, the vast majority of WP:RS uses the term 'capture'. As you appear to want to exclusively replace the term 'capture' with 'kidnap' in the article, this choice would appear to hinge on your own WP:OR. I am obviously WP:AGF here. Irondome (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from the section [above] Irondome, I WAS in Talk when you reverted the edit and then chastised me for not reading Talk. I’m using an iPad today, and as you might imagine, it takes a lot of time to type anything of substance.

Anyway, as you asked, from Wikipedia itself, “kidnapping” is:

In criminal law, kidnapping is the unlawful carrying away (asportation) and confinement of a person against their will. Thus, it is a composite crime. It can also be defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are separate crimes that when committed simultaneously upon the same person merge as the single crime of kidnapping.

The key here is the word “unlawful.” As stated, Mossad’s actions were unlawful under the only applicable laws in the situation (Argentinian and international laws). And in actuality, it would also be illegal as well under Israeli law, if it had happened in that country (Israeli law has no provision for such renditions). Moreover, there is no law anywhere (that I’m aware of) that allows for this type of action. The fact that Israel disregarded relevant laws because they believed that doing so served the greater good, doesn’t change the fact that the act was illegal under applicable context. Nor does the fact that Eichmann was a wanted war criminal change the legality of Mossad’s actions. Nor does the fact that most people are happy that it happened, make it legal. The act WAS a kidnapping by definition.

As for your comment, EEng, the act WAS nefarious only in that it was an illegal abduction in blatant violation of another country’s sovereignty. And no, of course Eichmann wasn’t a “harmless old grandpa”; in fact he was an evil man who deserved what he got. But again, that still doesn’t change the legality of anything. Illegally doing anything to a bad guy is just as illegal as doing the same thing to a good guy. That’s the only point here; this is not a defense of Eichmann in any shape or form.

Irondome— The common usage of simply “captured” without deeper explanation is a euphemism. Since Nazis are essentially universally considered “bad,” and the Israelis (or anyone hunting Nazis) are generally considered “good,” downplaying the illegality of the rendition is what drives this. It’s not wrong to say Eichmann was captured, but it’s purposefully incomplete.

If people face the fact that the capture was in fact accomplished by an illegal kidnapping, they fear it would lend some amount of sympathy to a horrible war criminal. Hence the euphemism: referring to the action simply as a “capture” is an attempt to lend a veneer of legality (or at least respectability) to the action. That’s why it’s so common in print. You can see this by other editors’ responses below. They all concentrate on the enormity of Eichmann’s crimes, and ignore my actual point on kidnapping.

If society at large wants it to be legal to extra-judicially kidnap criminals (so long as they’re really, really, really bad, like Eichmann) then society needs make that the law; until that happens, you can’t just pretend it’s legal because you agree with the kidnapper’s motivations.

That’s why I changed the terminology: to make the article complete and truthful, not to perpetuate a euphemism to cater to the political sensibilities of the masses. I thought that was the point of Wikipedia. USNPilot (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you should change your sentence to read, “A ‘mass murderer was kidnapped,’ not ‘a hapless bureaucrat kidnapped’,” as the actions of the subject are immaterial here. One’s actions’ legality is based on what they actually do, not on whom they do it to. Eichmann was clearly a mass murderer, but what Mossad accomplished was an illegal rendition, i.e. a kidnapping. USNPilot (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. One might OR argue in return that harboring a war criminal is a crjminal act....

Sure, you can make that argument, but it wouldn’t change the fact that doing something illegal to someone who is himself committing, or has committed illegal acts, doesn’t subsequently make your actions legal. Again, the only point here. USNPilot (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You really, really need to read WP:OR. We follow the characterizations found in reliable sources, not your personal analysis. Further posts along these lines will be ignored by me, and no doubt others. EEng 23:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote up a long comment, but then decided it wasn't necessary. Bottom line: "illegal kidnapping" will never get consensus, and I support "capatured" as being appropriately descriptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In 2007 I wrote this: I did a quick survey of a large database of law journals (HeinOnLine), searching for articles with phrases like "capture of Eichmann" and "capture of Adolf Eichmann". Here are the results (counts of articles): abduction 56, kidnapping 31, capture 17, seizure 9, arrest 2. There is a clear preference for "abduction". Note that "capture" refers to grabbing hold of someone, but "abduction" in addition refers to carrying him away to another place. That makes "abduction" more accurate. Although it is possible that popular sources use "capture" more often, legal experts don't. That's because legal experts are influenced by the precise meanings of words in law. I'm not sure about works by historians. Personally I'm not too fazed by the choice of word provided the article describes the details of the action accurately, but I do want to note that choices like "abduction" and "kidnapping" have quite a lot of support from good sources. I also noted in 2007 that none of the legal sources I examined, as far as I could see, suggested that the action was legal under international law or cited an authority that did. The Israeli court didn't make that claim either; it ruled that the legality of Eichmann's arrival in court was irrelevant to the legality of the trial. The joint statement issued by Israel and Argentina officially ending their dispute stated that the action "infringed fundamental rights of the State of Argentina". Zero^talk 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Law journals are, naturally, going to focus on legality. EEng 00:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And Argentinian criminal statutes really have very little to do with the overarching issues. To focus in them is to examine the bark of the tree instead of the extent of the forest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The article does discuss the fact the Argentina viewed the capture as being illegal. They claimed not to know where Eichmann was when specifically asked in 1958, but they probably did, according to Stagneth. And they had recently issued passports to his two sons in their own names. Many Nazis went there after the war, and many held positions in the police and other government organizations. So they are not in a position to take the moral high ground (my opinion, not Stagneth's): they were harbouring dozens or even hundreds of known criminals, many of them SS men. Stagneth, page 352-353.

Regarding the word choice, "kidnap" implies that the person taken is going to be held for ransom. Oxford dictionary says "...typically to obtain a ransom for their release". So kidnap is definitely not an appropriate word for what happened. Oxford has this to say: "Capture - 2. take someone prisoner". "Abduct - to take someone away, typically using force." In my opinion "capture" has the connotation that an enemy has been taken. Therefore my opinion is that "capture" is exactly the right word. Stagneth uses "abduct" quite a bit in the passages I just looked at. Posting before I get another edit conflict, then I will read BMK's most recent post. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

BMK and Diannaa, I said nothing about Argentinian law. I also didn't attempt to make a moral assessment (which I'm sure we would all agree on). My reference was only to international law. The overwhelming opinion of the many legal articles I consulted is that the breach of international law was completely obvious and unarguable. The Security Council ruled that too (while expressing horror at "the odious crimes of which Eichmann is accused"). Israel admitted it in the Israeli-Argentinian joint statement: the "fundamental rights of the State of Argentina" referred to as infringed was not Argentinian domestic law but Argentinian sovereignty. Personally I don't like "kidnap" for much the same reason as Diannaa. "Abduct" is a perfect fit, however. As well as in legal articles, I see it is widely used in books and Israeli newspapers. "Capture" is fine for the moment he was seized, but it doesn't cover his transfer to Israel which was surely the most important part of the operation. Zero^talk 01:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem with "abduct" and "abduction" is that they don't come into play until after Eichmann had been removed from Argentinian jurisdiction, which means it doesn't help at all with how to describe the time from when the Mossad first held Eichmann until they moved him and the action can be described as an "abduction". So "abduct" and "abduction" don't really solve the problem (which, in my opinion, is not a problem at all.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken about the meaning of the word and that the abduction included the moment of capture. Incidentally, I see "capture and transfer" in various places, which is accurate and descriptive. Zero^talk 03:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see how the national boundary has anything to do with it. I think we're agreed kidnap is out. I'm still with capture, though I could be talked into abduct in a pinch. EEng 03:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

International law (or Argentinian internal law) are but one aspect here - and not a major aspect. We should follow the most common verbiage across all types of sources (when examining capture vs. abduct). Capturing a suspect implies the transfer of the suspect to a safe location.Icewhiz (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure safe is the right choice of word, given that the subject ended up with a noose around his neck. EEng 05:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Safe for the capturing personnel. :-).Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

In my BEFORE of sources - I see significantly more sources using capture than abduction - both NEWSORGs and books.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)