Talk:Little Eichmanns/Archive 1

Not True
In Neil Postman's speech titled "Bullshit and the Art of Crap Detection" he uses the metaphor Eichmannism. While he does not state "little Eichmanns" he writes "mini-Eichmann". 

I think this page needs to be changed. 24.5.240.15 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Older uses
The article "THE CHOKING WHITE COLLAR", NYT, 15 March 1981 use the phrase "little Eichmann":
 * "Obviously, if they can make an employee -especially a manager bent on rising on the fictive pyramid (actually penetrating to the core of the onion) - totally identify his self-interest with that of the company he will not be alienated, he will be happy in his work, loyal and unquestioning, a regular little Eichmann." Zerotalk 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are many older uses. Go to books.google.com advanced search and look for the exact phrase "little eichmanns" before 1995. Example:
 * Matters of justice‎ - Page 22 by Michael W. Jackson - Law - 1986 - 181 pages "We have become 'little Eichmanns' because we have lost faith in universal rules or morality derived from custom and mores, from tradition, nature, God, ..."

Also the singular form "little eichmann" shows more examples. Zerotalk 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The examples indicate that it was quite an established phrase well before Zerzan used it. Zerotalk 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What if we rewrite this article to cite all usages (possible) of the metaphor, remove the claim that it is based on Zerzan's usage, and hyperlink to all users where possible? Tenna talk 07:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.81.220 (talk)


 * I think that would count as original research, which is against the rules. Zerotalk 00:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not saying it is based on Zerzan, altough I personally believe it is since Ward reads Zerzan. Nevertheless, we would need sources to make such a statement. Maziotis (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The way the article is structured, it appears to suggest Zerzan coined the phrase (or, at least, was the first to use it widely). It is odd that the only use of it cited is his, from 1995. Robert Anton Wilson uses it in a book published c.1973-75; his use of it stems from the Stanford prison experiment of 1971. If i find the earlier quote, Zerzan's is gone; it's use seems dubious. (Kirkesque (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)]])

Reasons for Edits
I added a media file to aid the article with visuals. Ckelln (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It looked like a joke and we don't do that here so I took it out. Zerotalk 01:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was not the intent but I see how it could be interpreted that way. Ckelln (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An image of the adult criminal Eichmann would be more appropriate. By the way, if you read the discussion above, many of use are unsure that this article should exist at all. Zerotalk 01:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Little Eichmanns. 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/20090318160658/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whoseunabomber.htm to http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whoseunabomber.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=%2Fheadlines05%2F0201-05.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirect
This article is currently written as a coat rack for mentions of the neologism, but what in-depth discussion does it have to warrant its own page? It requires at least several substantial, dedicated reliable sources. It is mentioned at Adolf_Eichmann, where interested editors can expand on the concept and eventually split out summary style if necessary. czar 00:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. After 13 years this article still does not have a single source which discusses the phrase which this article is supposedly about. At the moment it is just an essay and a poor collection of examples. Zerotalk 02:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover, most of the article is Original Research. Even in the lead: "popularized by Ward Churchill" has only citations to Churchill, and not to any source which says that Churchill's use of the phrase popularized it. Later it is claimed the concept arose from Hannah Arendt's writings, which is plausible but again is not cited to any source other than Arendt's book (which does not contain the phrase "little Eichmann"). Zerotalk 03:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct the sourcing needs some work, and I'm working on that now. However, I object to a "merge" being performed when there's been no use of the tag to generate talk page discussion. -- Kendrick7talk 15:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't do process for its own sake. Do you disagree that the article should be redirected? If not, there's no objection to the merge. If you feel that there is sourced content worth merging, go ahead. But the target article is already at "good article" status and I didn't consider any of the sourced content worth merging. We should only be summarizing what secondary sources have said about the topic, not merging original research. czar  15:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we largely agree on the WP:OR problem given my prior attempt to remove it myself. However, I don't think we need throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also, you'll want to use the  template to get buy-in at the target page. If, as you seem to admit, you don't actually want to do a merge, then you are just bypassing the WP:AfD process, which is rather problematic when an article has been around for over a decade, as other editors are going to notice the lack of process sooner or later. Let me see if I can come up with a better version of the article in the meantime. -- Kendrick7talk 15:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:ATD-R. Redirection and talk page discussion is a preferable alternative to AfD nomination. Again, since no one is objecting, I don't see any actual problem here. If someone wants to object in the future, there's nothing wrong with having that discussion then. If you want to merge content, go for it. If you want someone else to merge content, ask in another forum, perhaps Eichmann's talk page if need be? czar  16:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I've managed to add several new references and condensed away the coat racking. It's certainly much better sourced than when the last AfD resulted in a 'keep' back in 2010, so I don't believe a new AfD now would result in a new consensus. -- Kendrick7talk 00:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. It is now improved enough that I think fixing it is better than deleting it. There are some remaining problems, though:


 * "The phrase has been attributed to anarcho-primitivist writer John Zerzan" — since we know that attribution to be incorrect, I don't think it is notable enough to mention. Moreover, I don't know of any source for it. The source given (the forward "And then They build Monuments to You" to the book "Wielding Words like Weapons") actually refutes the claim. It only says that before Churchill used the phrase it was best known for Zerzan's use of it. Then it goes on to give many pre-Zerzan uses of the phrase, even one (John Dornberg, Schizophrenic Germany, 1961, p52) that is pre-Arendt. In total, about a page is devoted to discussion of the phrase, meaning that it should be mined for this article. I'll edit on that basis soon.
 * Zerotalk 02:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the fact that Mann refutes the claim is evidence enough that the claim exists, but have at it. -- Kendrick7talk 14:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is currently one paragraph on Arendt's book, one paragraph on reception of Arendt's concept, one paragraph on etymology of the neologism (the only content actually about the concept at hand and it doesn't even go into usage), and one lede paragraph in summary of it all. Everything important that is said in this article is already (or can be) covered more concisely at Adolf Eichmann. It would be sufficient to add a single sentence re: Ward's invocation of Eichmann's legacy following the "little Eichmann" sentence at Adolf Eichmann, if warranted by the sourcing, but it doesn't make sense to split out this separate article when its entire scope fits comfortably within existing articles. czar  10:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * An argument could probably be made that we might eventually want to resurrect the banality of evil article, which was merged away for lack of sourcing some years ago, and merge this article to that one as they are two closely related concepts. But given Godwin's Law, these "Holocaust analogies" (to coin a phrase) aren't going away anytime soon and tend to take on lives of their own. -- Kendrick7talk 14:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works in summary style. "Banality of evil" doesn't need its own page to warrant the merger of this content. Both concepts could be included as within the influence of Arendt's book. Alternatively, and perhaps more fittingly, the cultural reception of Eichmann should be covered within the scope of his biographical article. Even with this page's rewrite, the majority of the content is more about Eichmann's cultural legacy than about the phrase "little Eichmanns". czar  15:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Czar, if you think the article shouldn't exist, you need to go thru the AfD process. That's what it is there for. -- Kendrick7talk 22:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, AfD is for deletion arguments. Talk pages are for merge discussions. czar  01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A merge should follow the WP:PRESERVE policy. -- Kendrick7talk 03:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)