Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

References

Dear Neil. When Wiki-users repeatedly input wrong information (as KarlV and Giro have done in the German wiki), and although this information is proven wrong on the discussion page by many other Wiki-users, and then KarlV/Giro imput the wrong information again and again, something is obviously dysfunctional with the Wiki system of protection. I was going to add some verifiable references for this article, but, since it is blocked, I suggest that the Administrators add the information from the discussion page. 1) At the end of the article there is mention of the international day of peace 21 September 2007 and the colloquium at the Salle de Conseil of the UN where de Zayas read out the statement by Ban-ki Moon. This is reported in the internal UN news, in the Swiss newspaper Current Concerns, October 2007, No. 14, page 8, and in the December 2007 issue of DIVA International. 2) As far as the "Association Suisses et Internationaux de Genève", which de Zayas co-directed with Jacqueline Berenstein-Wavre 1996-2006, see for instance Tribune de Geneve, 4 March 1998, p. 11, Tribune de Geneve 12 February 2000, p. 8. See also UN Special, April 2002, pp. 28-29, and Le Courrier de Geneve 10 February 2000, p. 11. See also the article on Berenstein-Wavre in the Tribune de Geneve, 19 April 2005, p. 28. 3) As far as the salon littéraire see Tribune de Geneve, 9 April 1997, p. 12 "Les Internationaux lancent un salon littéraire". If necessary, I can get the old reports of the Geneva Club de la Presse, where the events were announced and commented. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To 193.239.220.249... I have added the references in (1) above. As for (2) and (3), I've decided that this is too much work and have lifted the protection so that you can add these yourself. I will monitor this page for further disruption and re-protect if it seems appropriate. If necessary, leave me a message on my Talk Page or request re-protection at WP:RPP --Richard (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For more than two months now this article has had a POV "neutrality" warning. Why? I think it should be removed. The discussion page does not justify it. I have read two of the de Zayas books and some of the articles in his website. This is original, well-researched, thought-provoking stuff. Fernando. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.109.125 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "Cuban-born" in the first line, because it is also mentioned in the Biography section. There is no need to repeat this particular piece of information, which more properly belongs under biography. No one would start an article on Henry Kissinger by referring to him as German-born American citizen, or for that matter Arnold Schwarzenegger as Austrian-born American citizen. Such information may be interesting, but not crucial, and it belongs further down in the article. What makes de Zayas Wiki-relevant is what he has written and what he has done in the United Nations, not where he was born. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger articles have an Infobox Officeholder and Infobox Governor template respectively at their begining, where these facts are displayed, but in biographies without such an infobox, birthday and- place belong into the first sentece, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph. --Schwalker (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory material must be immediately removed from the Wikipedia. The de Zayas article in the German Wikipedia has been vandalized since Septebmer 2007 and is currently protected until June 2008. The article in the English Wiki was vandalized in December 2007 and required protection, which was given, and then lifted. On 29 February user Swalker introduced defamatory information which is easily rebuttable. He gives one source, a book review by a leftist German historian of one of de Zayas books. That same book received brilliant reviews in the Times, Army, Netherlands International Law Review and most recently in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (31 July 2006). It is ridiculous and defamatory to suggest that de Zayas, a noted human rights activist, frequent participant at UN panels and former senior lawyer with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is a "revisionist" historian. His views are balanced, as illustrated in the majority of the reviews of his many books. Moreover, the Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland invited de Zayas to write the delicate inter-disciplinary chapter "Vertreibung und Völkerrecht" for the catalogue of the governmental exhibit "Flucht, Vertreibung, Integration". This illustrates sufficiently that de Zayas is a well-respected historian and jurist. Moreover, de Zayas recently participated on a panel organized by the highly respected Institut für Zeitgeschichte on the Potsdam Conference -- together with luminaries from Oxford, Sorbonne and Moscow. The book was published by IfZ in September 2007 under the title "Die Potsdamer Konferenz. 60 Jahre Danach". For various views on the academic reception of de Zayas' books this article already refers the reader to the pertinent Wikipedia entries on those books.Gancefort (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The review is published on H-Net, an academic source, which makes it relevant for Wikipedia. The article not only refers to that particular book but more genrally to de Zayas work on the flight and expulsion of Germans after WWII. The article is not defamatory but gives an assessment of de Zayas' rôle especially in the German public discourse. It is not legitimate to remove from WP material which is relying on highly reputable sources. --Schwalker (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "revisionist" must be used very carefully, because it has serious defamatory implications. It is obscene to suggest that de Zayas is a "revisionist". If the H-Net source were truly reputable and unbiased, it would have uploaded the very positive reviews of "A Terrible Revenge" in the London Times, in the Netherlands International Law Review, in the Historische Zeitschrift, in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, etc. The views of Rainer Ohliger sind outdated and thoroughly rejected by other prominent historians -- including Professor Dr. Horst Möller, Director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in München/Berlin and by Professor Dr. Manfred Kittel of the University of Regensburg. Wiki readers should also know that the new Macmillan edition of the de Zayas book was favourably cited in the New York Review of Books in November 2007 and positively reviewed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 31 July 2006 -- that is ten years after the Ohliger review. Gancefort (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that a book had a positive or negative review provides almost zero information for the reader. It's Much more important to report why, for what reasons the reviewer likes or dislikes a book. If the arguments of other reviewers of the "A Terrible Revenge" book are relevant, they can be added to this (or to the A Terrible Revenge) article. However, the A Terrible Revenge#Reviews -section there, which is composed from reproductions of direct quotes from reviews does not meet the requirements of an encyclopaedia, but rather looks like an advertisment by the publishing house.--Schwalker (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schwalker -- the H-Net review by Rainer Ohliger is a cheap smear. If you are serious about reviews, then rely on more reputable sources. De Zayas takes an inter-disciplinary approach to the expulsion of the Germans, and examines it both from the historical (going back to the 19th century, to the Treaties of St. Germain and Versailles, to Hitler's Machtergreifung) and from the legal standpoint. He is well qualified to do this, because he holds a Juris Doctor from Harvard and a Dr. phil. from Göttingen. De Zayas very much takes into account the crimes of the Nazis. That is why his first book on the subject was called "Nemesis at Potsdam" (the goddess of revenge) and why the book reviewed by Ohliger is called "A Terrible Revenge". But one crime does not legitimize another. De Zayas has spent decades in the United Nations working as a senior lawyer in the field of human rights. It is not possible to segregate victims into first- and second-class victims. All innocent people are entitled to our respect and compassion. This also includes the German victims of the expulsion. Please remove your addition with its libelous implication -- or at least redraft it. 83.77.212.10 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article concerns the person Alfred de Zayas. The reception of one of his books -- "A Terrible Revenge" should be discussed in the Wiki article on that book. True enough, Ohliger belongs to a group of German historians who refuse to view the German expellees as victims, and who attribute all of the world's sins to the Nazis. Alas, it is more complicated than that. De Zayas is very thorough in examining the many causes of the expulsion and does not limit himself to the 30 of January of 1933 or to the 1st of September 1939. Many factors contributed to this humanitarian catastrophe, many times worse than the ethnic cleansing of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia. The fact that de Zayas views the German civilian population of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia etc. as victims does not make him a "revisionist". The first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dr. Jose Ayala Lasso, also acknowledged the victim status of the German expellees in Frankfurt in 1995 and again in Berlin in 2005. So too the UN Rapporteur on the Human Rights dimensions of Population Transfers (See E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23). The moral dimension of the expulsion is an issue that should be addressed. User 83.77.212.10 is right in reminding us that there is no first-class and second-class victimhood. As far as the impact of the books of de Zayas, a brief look in the Internet provides ample information. Just a few references to other books, articles and scholarly treatises that cite de Zayas: Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon in 24 Bänden, Bd. 23, "Vertreibung", citing both "Die Anglo-Amerikaner und die Vertreibung der Deutschen" and "Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung", p. 165 R.J. Rummel, Democide, Transaction Publishers, New York, 1992. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, Transaction Publishers, New York, 1994, Chapter 12. Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany, Harvard University Press, 1995 Horst Boog et al., Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion, Bd. 4, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart, 1983. Marion Frantzioch, Die Vertriebenen. Mit einer kommentierten Bibliographie, Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin 1987, pp. 406-08. Klaus-Dieter Schulz-Vobach, Die Deutschem Im Osten, Hoffman und Campe, Hamburg 1989 Gilbert Gornig, Das nördliche Ostpreussen, Bonn 1995. Burkhard Schöbener, Die amerikanische Besatzungspolitik und das Völkerrecht, Peter Lang, Bern 1991. Edward N. Peterson, The Many Faces of Defeat. Peter Lang, New York, 1990. Manfred Zeidler, Kriegsende im Osten, Oldenbourg Verlag, München 1996. Freya Klier, Verschleppt ans Ende der Welt, Ullstein, Belrin 1998. Jörg Friedrich, Das Gesetz des Krieges, Piper, München, 1993. Haus der Heimat des Landes Baden-Württemberg, Umsiedlung, Flucht und Vertreibung der Deutschen, Stuttgart 2002, p. 89 Jean-Marie Henckaerts, Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice, 1995. Manfred Kittel, Vertreibung der Vertriebenen? Oldenbourg Verlag, München 2007. Christopher Dobson, John Miller, Roland Payne, Die Versenkung der Wilhelm Gustloff, Zsolnay Verlag, Hamburg, 1979. Hugh Thomas, Armed Truce, Hamish Hamilton, London 1986, pp. 266, 320-21, 330-33, 612, 619-20 Hellmuth Günther Dahms, Die Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Herbig, München 1983. Norman Naimark, Fires of Hatred, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2001. Pertti Ahonen, After the Expulsion, Oxford University Press, New York 2003, pp. 20-21. Matthias Stickler, Ostdeutsch heisst Gesamtdeutsch, Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf, 2004. Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Flucht Vertreibung Integration, 3. Auflage, Bonn 2006. Norman Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945, Macmillan, London, 2006, pp. 311, 500. Robert Paxton, "Inside the Panic" in the New York Review of Books, 22 November 2007, p. 50. Giles MacDonough, After the Reich. John Murray Publishers, London 2007. pp. 126, 556, etc. "There is a similar lack of documentation in English on events in Czechoslovakia. The best remains Alfred M. de Zayas's Nemesis at Potsdam (London 1979)," p. 585. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That de Zayas has been cited in other books does not mean that Wikipedia should censor his birthdates or the criticism of his work. For Wikipedia it is not important what is true, or morally right, but what can be cited from reputable sources. The NPOV principle requires not to write hagiographic biographies, but to present all relevant points of view on an articles subject.--Schwalker (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schwalker. Be serious. For Wikipedia as for every encyclopedia it is very important to distinguish between what is true and what is false -- reliability is the raison d'être of an Encyclopedia. Wiki cannot be the receptacle for all sorts of defamations and insinuations. It is not a boulevard newspaper -- and it aspires to be as truthful and as reliable as possible. Criticism of any author is, of course, legitimate and belongs in the article -- provided that the criticism is well founded and has not been conclusively refuted by other sources. Rainer Ohliger is a poor source to cite against the book "A Terrible Revenge". Of course, Ohliger has a right to his historical bias -- but he oversteps the line when he suggests that de Zayas is a revisionist. You know very well what connotations go with the term "revisionist" and that they are highly libellous. Thus, let us remain civil in this discussion and endeavour to cite better sources. You may, for instance, go to the Wiki article on "A Terrible Revenge" and write there that a number of historians disagree with de Zayas. But you must also take into account that many professors of history and international lawyers in the United States, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland etc. have gone on record agreeing with de Zayas. The expulsion of the Germans is a touchy issue, even 63 years after Potsdam. De Zayas is neither German nor Polish. Neither Czech nor Jewish. He does not have an axe to grind. In his long career as a human rights activist with decades of UN experience, he has proven to be a fair advocate of many victims -- indigenous peoples, minorities, migrant workers, Armenians, Cypriots, Bosnians, etc. Surely you will agree that the expulsion of the Germans raises important human rights concerns and that an inter-disciplinary approach to the subject must also take these considerations into account. But if you continue to have doubts about "A Terrible Revenge", do express them in the Wiki article on that book. By the way, it is unfair to continue putting the "neutrality" warning on this article. The dispute has been long resolved and other Wiki users, tired of this kind of petty warfare, have removed it on at least three occasions before. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schwalker. You cannot continue putting the neutrality warning without justifying this request. The article has 74 footnotes that substantiate the information in it and give Wiki readers the opportunity to make up their own minds. Indeed there are few Wiki articles with as much documentation. I agree with the entry of Wiki-User Fernando on 6 February: "For more than two months now this article has had a POV "neutrality" warning. Why? I think it should be removed. The discussion page does not justify it. I have read two of the de Zayas books and some of the articles in his website. This is original, well-researched, thought-provoking stuff. Fernando. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.109.125 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)". It seems that your interest focuses on one of de Zayas' books "A Terrible Revenge". Why don't you go on the discussion page of the Wiki article on that book and express your opinion there? By the way, notwithstanding the opinion of this biased reviewer Ohliger, the book has had a new, revised edition with Palgrave/Macmillan in 2006, which was recently favourably quoted in the New York Review of Books. What is particularly irritating in the Ohliger review -- besides its arrogant tone -- is that he reviews "A Terrible Revenge" as if it were a doctoral dissertation. De Zayas did write a thorough and highly praised doctoral dissertation on the subject, which was published by Routledge under the title "Nemesis at Potsdam". As you can read in the prefact to the much shorter book "A Terrible Revenge", this book was conceived as a simplified, more accessible version of "Nemesis". Both books take into account the Nazi crimes that preceded the expulsions. But de Zayas does not make the mistake of Wolfgang Benz or Micha Brumlick, who attribute everything to the 1st of September of 1939. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The expulsions have a long history, going back to the treaties of St. Germain and Versailles, to the League of Nations' failed system of minority protection, to the geopolitical interests of Stalin, Benes and Bierut, etc. 217.169.133.249 (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP

User Schwalker should be reminded of the Wiki rule that "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous".

Surely it is libelous to suggest that de Zayas is a "revisionist". It does not help that the defamation appeared in the H-Net. Schwalker is doing Wikipedia a disservice by citing this libelous source. The fact is that the books of de Zayas have been excellently reviewed in the scholarly press. Of course, there is an occasional critical review -- but Rainer Ohliger's review is simply defamatory. Besides, the book in question "A Terrible Revenge" just had a new edition with Macmillan that has had very good reviews, including in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Suffice it to say, that if there were any problem with de Zayas, Ambassador Robert Murphy would not have written the preface of "Nemesis at Potsdam", Professor Howard Levie would not have written the preface of "Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau" and Professor Charles Barber (a left-wing Democrat and former candidate for the US Congress for the Democratic Party) would not have written the preface of "A Terrible Revenge". oa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.39.52 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality template

This is necessary at the top of the article as long as a group of users under different IPs is removing material supported by reputable sources about the article's subject. --Schwalker (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schwalker. The neutrality template cannot be added again and again ad nauseam. Several other Wiki-users have taken it out (after months of discussions on this talk page) for good reason. There has been sufficient discussion on de Zayas and the article has been improved bz the addition of 74 footnotes and references to reputable sources. What you seem to want is to introduce a biased review of one book by de Zayas. That source is already included in the Wiki article on A Terrible Revenge, and that must be enough. You do not have to import it into this article, which is about the PERSON de Zayas. If there are articles on three of his books, that is where your comments should be made, not here. Although this particular book that you so obviously dislike was negatively reviewed by Ohliger, the fact is that prominent historians and professors of international law have reviewed it positively, as you can easily determine. Moreover, this is only a small facet in the activities of de Zayas, whom I know from the United Nations. In fact, today, 7 February, he has just delivered a masterly lecture on the right to development in the context of a panel in room 22 of the Palais des Nations in Geneva, as a side event to the 7th session of the Human Rights Council. The issue of the German expellees is indeed an important one, but de Zayas is far more involved in questions of torture, abolition of the death penalty, freedom of expression, minority rights, indigenous populations, etc. The cheap smear by Ohliger is of little weight in comparison to de Zayas' numerous human rights publications -- all of them in reputable journals and publishing houses, as shown in the footnotes to this artice. Dr. JvA 217.169.133.249 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reason why the neutrality template should stay is the repeated deletion of the mentioning of de Zayas' opinions about the rehabilitation and honouring of deserters, and about the Wehrmacht exhibitions in 1995 and 2001. --Schwalker (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All allegations are stupid nonsense...you search the hair in the soup we say in Germany. You should start mentioning all the good references. It is obvious and makes us suspicious that you ONLY find the alleged bad sources. You have no relevant and appropriate source for you allegations. Instead it is YOU who is not neutral. 80.171.35.222 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)CS

I have made no allegations but represent what is written in several sources. It is not an allegation against someone to present their opinions. De Zayas opinions on Wehrmacht deserters and -exhibitions are sourced by his own website alfreddezayas.com . The interview had been broadcasted and printed before in Germany. The other sources have been published in renowned media such as H-Net. --Schwalker (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see not a single source !!!!!! Show us a direct links and sources. The sources you mention are too weak. 213.39.194.82 (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)CS

Others before me, and I have supported our additional material with sources in the footnotes. Of course now you don't see them in the article, since they have been reverted away again. You can see the different versions by going through the Revision-history and clicking on "(last)" to see the changes in the article. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, here is the right place to place your sources... show us!213.39.194.82 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)CS

Ingolstadt Institute

This is indeed a private right fringe revisionist association. For example see the reproduction of an article from the German journal Blick nach Rechts (View to the Right, in my translation):

History Revisionist Association at 14. December 2006

Ingolstadt. The 25th years of existence was celebrated by the history revisionist "Ingolstadt Research Institute for Contemporary History" ["Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt"] (ZFI) at this year's Harvest convention on November 11 at Ingolstadt.

The ZFI, "an institution" ("National Zeitung" [German far right weekly)]) and "corrective of everlasting truths" ("Junge Freiheit", [German new right monthly paper]) was founded on November 21 1981 by Alfred Schickel [...]

In circles of the extreme right, ZFI conductor Schickel is regarded as a "legend-killer", who "has already moved some obstinate legends to the right place" ("Nation & Europa" [German monthly paper of the extreme right]). [...]

The wikipedia article should not hide this information from the readers. --Schwalker (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Not about the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt. Characterisations of whether the Institute is far right or not, or revisionist or not, are better left to the article on the Institute - as, when and if it is created. (de:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt would be a good basis for such an article). Neıl ☎ 10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand - the most neutral way of describing the institue would be to simply state its name, avoiding any commentary. Neıl ☎ 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Schwalker, the ZFI is a conservative thinktank. It has nothing at all to do with left or right wing groups. Many of its publications have been well reviewed in Die Zeit, FAZ and other mainstream newspapers. You cite "Blick nach Rechts" -- excuse me if I laugh out loud -- Americans do not know that this organization is an extreme-left outfit, a remnant of old antifa, communist and Stasi groups -- hardly a source worth citing, and surely not in the English language Wikipedia. Far more interesting for the reader is who spoke in honour of de Zayas at Ingolstadt -- as you can read in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, it was none other than the bestselling Professor Alexander Demandt from the University of Berlin, who publishes primarily in C.H.Beck, one of the most respected houses in Germany. And who spoke in Stuttgart on Human Rights Day 2007 to honour de Zayas? The former Dean of the Law Faculty and Professor of International Law at the University of Tübingen Thomas Oppermann. Would you like to defame these people too? Gancefort (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't defame anyone, and you should not make such accusations against me. The Blick nach rechts is a reliable source for wikipedia, it is not extremist, and you have presented no source for defaming it as a "Stasi [former GDR intelligence service] group". The journal is partly funded by the Ministry of the Interior, the patron is Ute Vogt, former Secretary of the State and vice president of the Social democrats party until 2007. As far as I know, publications of the ZFI are not regarded as serious scientific contributions by the quality press. I have no explication why Mr Demandt has participated in the ceremony for de Zayas, Minister for consumers and agriculture Horst Seehofer (besides a born Ingolstädter) had been heavily critisized in 2006 for sending a greeting to the ZFI. --Schwalker (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)