Talk:Adolf Eichmann

Lead photo

I'm proposing that the lead photo (in SS uniform) be replaced w/ the photo in the Trial section. The subject's notoriety is largely from his capture & trial, so this image would be more recognizable. Separately, the later photo summarizes Eichmann's life, instead of presenting him as almost a propaganda icon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• 
  (1942)
• 
  (1961)

I think the time has long past since the uniform image would be considered "propaganda", in anything other than an historical sense. I'd also take issue with the claim that his notoriety "is largely from his capture & trial". I'd say that his notoriety lies in his responsibility for the killing of 5.1 million Jewish people. That happened, while he wore that uniform, regardless of his eventual capture and trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference — Diannaa (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, either. Kierzek (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the image change. The photo shows a smug authoritative confidence conferred by one of the worst ideologies of the 20th Century. This ideology continues to hold some in its thrall and the imagery is part of that. The photo of him in the dock facing the judgement of a civil society is more appropriate. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7145:DD44:14B4:50BD (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm Jewish and that picture doesn't offend me. It looks like a standard photo portrait that is commonly taken by the services or the government. I guess it can be annoying that he's smiling or it makes him look heroic or something. I get that but I think maybe people are reading too much into it. It says more about the skill of the photographer than the man himself. I happen to think it's a very good picture. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Lead image

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

• 
  A: 1942 photo
• 
  B: 1961 photo

{{{annotations}}}

C: 1961 photo (zoomed in)

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion: Lead image

{{{annotations}}}

option C:

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

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

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

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

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

Gerhard Klammer reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Copyright infringement or plagiarism?

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

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

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

Spelling

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

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

Zionism

Arendt’s famous book on Eichmann makes some discussion on his support of Zionism (it was a way to get the Jews to leave Germany and achieve Judenfrei). An awkward part of the article to be sure, and one to be done with care, but something that seems likely to be worth addressing. 2601:601:A400:B5F5:A12E:AF06:499F:2B6B (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yonah Elian

Why would the name of the doctor who played in a critical role in subduing Eichmann that allowed his notorious extradition not be relevant to his Wikipedia page? Especially when there's an entire subsection dedicated to his capture in Argentina. MumpsimusManchuMagi (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's an important detail, but I'm not going to edit war about it. — Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)