Talk:Little Eichmanns/Archive 1

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". [1]

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

Secondary sources

About last change, we just need to find secondary sources. I added the tag, refimprove at the top. Just a quick google books search gives an impressive list of results. The expression is notable and it has a history: http://books.google.com/books?hl=pt-PT&q=%22Little+Eichmanns%22 Maziotis (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

However, most of the text you reintroduced is wrong. The phrase was certainly not coined by Zerzan, as proved above, and the rest comes from a source making that false claim. No article is better than a false and misleading article. Zero^talk 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the first three pages of those google books results and all but one of the results (an Anne Sexton book) was about Ward Churchill. The phrase itself probably isn't notable. There aren't any secondary sources about the phrase itself, only about Ward Churchill's use of it, so it makes more sense to just talk about it in Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy. All this article says is that Churchill used this phrase, he got it from Zerzan, people objected to it, and the "Eichmann" motif ultimately comes from Hannah Arendt. Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy says all those things too, so what's the point of this article?Prezbo (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Try this search: [2]. Zero^talk 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The expression is obviously related to the article you mentioned, but there is nothing wrong in writting an article only about the story of a famous saying. Since there has been so much controversy about the expression itself, I believe there is cause for notability. I think that it is only a question of looking for sources. We should write in detail, not only the history of its use, but the explanations that have been given for its concept.

Zero: I have to remind you that Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's not our job to separate the "liar" sources from the ones who tell the truth. If the source itself is considered notable, the statement can be atributed. Anyway, I don't see how the article says that Churchill got it from Zerzan. We have a source claiming that the first recorded use of the sentence is by Zerzan, and the description of the rise to prominence by the use of Churchill. If you have a source that contradicts the first premise, you can change the article accordingly. This doesn't mean that we have the right to synthesize sources or, again, choose the true from the false. We have to include what is stated with the sources we have. Maziotis (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Given Wards's involvement with primitivism and authors such as Derrick Jensen and Chellis Glendinning (US off the planet), exactly what makes you think that Ward didn't get the expression by reading Zerzan's article? Maziotis (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of who came up with the phrase, I think that we can solve this by making a distinction in the article between the "coining" of this use of term and previous records of its use. It doesn't really matter if we contradict the source or not in this regard. If after the link between Zerzan and Churchill is established we add "however the use of the term has been used before, as in....", as long as it's sourced, we are breaking any rules in terms of use of reliable sources. It is in fact relevant to trace the popular prominence of an expression and finding its first recorded use. Maziotis (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible that Ward Churchill copied the phrase from Zerzan. I don't find it an interesting question. However, Zerzan did not "coin" the phrase and we shouldn't say he did. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not an excuse for repeating claims that are proved false by multiple sources that are just as reliable as the source making the erroneous claim. (In fact the chronology of the earlier sources clearly indicates Ward Churchill is an unreliable source on this point.) Zerzan and Churchill belong in this article as modern examples of the use of an older phrase. However, we do not have any source that charts the course of the phrase throughout history and could only construct an accurate article by putting bits and pieces from multiple sources. It seems to me this would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. The conclusion is that we can't have this article until a reliable source for it is found. Meanwhile, the subject can appear in articles specifically on Churchill and/or Zerzan. Zero^talk 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. Who claims that Zerzan coined the phrase? It is not in the source given, nor is it in Churchill's book as far as I can see. It says in the latter (p33) only that the phrase was "borrowed from John Zerzan's 'He Means It. Do You?'" - nothing about where Zerzan got it. Zero^talk 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Who determines that a certain source is false? The policy,Wikipedia:Verifiability, does mean that you cannot engage in original research or WP:SYNTH. The fact that someone claims a certain premise to be true can be a relevant fact in itself, and we should not exclude it with basis on other sources, for the sake of seeking to conclude "the truth". This doesn't mean that we will be forced to express false conclusions through the voice of the article. But our job is indeed to just reflect what notable sources are saying. In this particular case, what exactly do you mean by Churchill being an unreliable source? Maziotis (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw the question about Churchill's reliability, since it was only based on the claim incorrectly cited to him in the article. Did Churchill ever claim that Zerzan invented the phrase? Where? If not, there is no source at all for it and a lot of this discussion becomes unnecessary. Zero^talk 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I still think there shouldn't be an article about this. The only controversy there has been about this expression is in relation to Ward Churchill. There aren't any sources treating it in depth. Its history can be treated in the Ward Churchill controversy article--just add a sentence saying "earlier uses of the phrase include...". It's not a complex concept that requires explanation. I'm just repeating myself again as a preliminary to putting this up for AfD.Prezbo (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur w/ Prezbo (in the last paragraph above)....the whole article is very dubious, as it now reads. It should be marked for deletion. "little Eichmanns" went viral because of the media attention it got (primarily Fox News), but never entered common usage. Anyone stating otherwise needs to source the phrase itself as being in common use - not just the context or whom has used it...Let's look at the opening sentence, which claims: "Little Eichmanns is a phrase used to describe persons who participate in society in a way that, while on an individual scale may seem relatively innocuous even to themselves..." etc etc...(I added the boldface). Point is, this was Churchill's one-time thing. Cover it under his article... Engr105th (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of this previously established phrase by Churchill is already discussed in Churchill-related articles. This specific article is about the phrase itself, which pre-exists Churchill's use of it (he didn't coin the phrase, nor is he soley responsible for the notability of the phrase), and notes some of the many other instances where it has been used. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2012 (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." Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The examples indicate that it was quite an established phrase well before Zerzan used it. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:45, 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#little_Eichmanns, 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. Zero^talk 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"). Zero^talk 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 {{Merge to}} tag to generate talk page discussion. -- Kendrick7^talk 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.[3] However, I don't think we need throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also, you'll want to use the {{Merge from}} 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: 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.

Zero^talk 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 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#Impact. 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#Impact, 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)