Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Eichmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.176.81.220 (talk) at 16:39, 15 August 2009 (→Remove reference to Ward Churchill). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hungarian baroness?

As silly as this might sound, I've just watched the movie Eichmann and in it he had an affair with a Hungarian baroness who was portrayed as a blood-thirsty psychopath who encouraged him to kill more people. Did this person exist in real life? I cannot see any mention of her in this article.Captain Fearnought (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that movie too. I know of no such person in Eichmann's life, but I am far from an expert on his life. I will look it up. If the film-makers invented her, it was shockingly irresponsible of them to do so. Given the generally reasonable level of veracity of the rest of the movie, I would be surprised to learn that she was entirely invented, but on the other hand I imagine that if she had a real-life model, the reality was less sensational. Lexo (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Woudnt kidnapped be a better word than captured? Captured implies that it was a legal act.

doris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that way to me. Under what legal authority did Israel kidnap/capture him and try him in Israel? He committed no crimes in Israel, which didn't even exist when he was murdering people. Note that I am not arguing he was not a murderer and should not have been executed -- I just wonder what authority Israel had for doing so. It seems they have used the old power of "might makes right" in this case. CsikosLo (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that kidnapping (that one person takes and carries another away; by force or fraud; without the consent of the person taken; and without lawful excuse) would apply here. I recently tried to change this word but was reverted under the reason (This has been discussed; apprehend is the neutral term). 1- The only 'discussion' that I see here is the previous statement and I don't see any argument explaining why 'apprehended' would be representative here. Futhermore, all examples of apprehension/arrest in both Wikipedia itself and any dictionary that I could put my hand on imply quite clearly that an 'apprehension/arrest' is done under legal authority. Even a 'wrong' apprehension is called 'unlawful arrest' because it was done by peoples who legally represented the law, even if the event itself was done in violation is other rules/laws. Therefore I will make the change from 'apprehended' to 'kidnapped'. Please do not revert it back without explaining why. If worst come to worst we could instead switch it to 'captured' like how this even is described in the 'Mossad' article but it would need instead to be 'illegaly captured'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.158.243 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here in the archive. The consensus was for "capture" not kidnapped (nor "apprehend", my mistake). freshacconci talktalk 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Zerotalk 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please see the rationale for adding a cross-reference to the Little Eichmanns page in the "censorship" position stated below. talk 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Eichmann&oldid=308145582"