Talk:Alfred de Grazia/Archive 1

Old comment
Recommended for deletion, on grounds of being a vanity article.

T.V. Smith
The reference is to a different T V Smith to the one linked to ! -- Beardo 06:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be recommended that this page be deleted. De Grazia is an influential and significant 20th century intellectual. On what grounds is it construed that this article is a "vanity article"?--BenJonson 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One reason to classify this bio entry a "vanity article" is the fact that it was almost certainly written by the subject and uploaded initially by his wife, Ami de Grazia. -- Phaedrus7 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added material about my father that I believe to be impartial and POV-neutral. We were very distant, and he had no time for us. I suspect that Wikipedia is "centric," that is, unless the material has appeared before in another authoritative publication, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, they really don't feel that it merits appearing in Wikipedia. "Wikicentric" really means nothing in Wikipedia is original, everything is derivative, and if you could find original material, it would be concerning the presentation of material (publishing) to the public by the public, which is what Wikipedia does and is exactly an aspect that my father would have been interested and involved in as a Sociologist and Political Scientist. Do you see what I mean?

Anne Marie vs. Ami?
It seems like the article is giving two names for de Grazia's present wife. Which one should stay in the article? We should have one name throughout the article. Ami appears to be a nickname, so I'd like to suggest Anne Marie.--Sethacus 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * de Grazia seems to use both Anne Marie and Ami on his Web site. There is one comment on his web site where he refers to "my wife, Ami de Grazia, the French novelist (formerly Anne-Marie Hueber)" --Tsyko 10:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember receiving a letter from Ami (the French spelling) addressed to Anne Marie von Hueber. Ami, or Madame Anne-Marie deGrazia, is from Alsace-Lorraine, a Franco-German region that is bilingual. I've learned elsewhere that it was one of the Roman "marches," and she confirmed that the Jews of the area pre-date many or most of the German inhabitants. This was a result of the Diaspora, or the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine, and their subsequent migration up the Danube and then down the Rhine where they settled near enough to the Roman cities to engage in commerce, but far enough from Rome to avoid being bothered by Roman authorities and affected by the politics of that place. Germans were not allowed on the Gallic side of the Rhine during Roman times, and those settled in Alsace may be the descendants of the dozens of tribes the entered Roman-governed territories during the period known as the Great Migrations to German historians. The remains of the Roman rule of Europe will be with us forever, however dysfunctional they are in effect. (Jagtig (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC))

de Grazia's areas of notability
Note that de Grazia was one of the first to do computer-based social network analysis -- Facebook in 1953. "In 1953-4, Alfred de Grazia, who was then Executive Officer of the Committee for Research in Social Science and Associate Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, submitted a proposal to the Department of State to write a manual that would help train federal employees assigned to culturally diverse countries around the world..." See http://www.grazian-archive.com/governing/Elite/F_34.html

The American Behavioral Scientist, which De Grazia founded, was the first journal of Sage Publications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAGE_Publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubois (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

While it appears that de Grazia is notable for his early works, his 'scientific' work seems rather dubious. Does it really merit more than a brief mention here?--Michig 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) And is there any notability whatsoever to his plays?--Michig 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's dubious, and we have verification, then we say so. But since he published over a dozen "quantavolution" books on the subject, it was a significant part his life. His work seems to be well-cited in much catastrophist literature such as Kronos, and SIS Review. If we were discussing his scientific contributions elsewhere, then I would agree. --Tsyko 10:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer the second question, from de Grazia's own site: "These plays are published here for the first time. One of them represents an unpublished drama of fifty years ago, but fourteen were conceived and written during the past two years. The only people who have read them all are my author-wife, Anne-Marie, and my grandson and film-maker, Nick Vanderpool. Others have read one or several of them. If all goes well, they will constitute most of the repertoire for the 2002 season of a theatrical troupe touring America and Europe." So, no. There is an assertion that two were made into films in Italy, but the one site I found for one of them is "in costruzione" (under construction).--Sethacus 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The site for the film in question (The Gene of Hope) is available through the link provided in the article User:AmidegAmideg (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Literary works - My father was a massive intellect that was sometimes seen as over-reaching. Considering everything, I would like to offer the following explanation. The town of Licodia Eubea, called by some the family's town of origination, is perched on a steep hill overlooking the plain that extends to the sea where lies the port city of Syracuse. The Eubeans (pronounced Aye-you-BAY-uhns) settled the town in 700 B.C. and that in itself is significant, since it was they who taught the Romans to read and write, or gave them their written language, and thus were commonly taken as pedagogues by the Romans. So, you must look at the Roman style of learning and scholarship to judge his contributions through a truly appropriate lens. Now, in addition to the Eubean contribution, historians of the ancient world will tell you that a flotilla of Athenians; generals, hoplites and others, converged on Syracuse (an ally of the Spartans, but not Spartan, themselves) at the height of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians were routed, and some were taken into slavery while others appear to have escaped to the hills. Licodia was a natural refuge for these escapees, and my father and grandfather's physical resemblances to the philosopher Socrates is arguable. At any rate, they appear more like Athenians of old than of any other type, as far as I have been able to detect. In fact, I told him to his face that he was a Sophist, and he did not deny it. Spiritually, I believe that he was an Athenian Sophist somehow transported in some way to the modern world. You need only read his works on practical democracy and government to see my point. At any rate, he was always proudly Greek, not unlike the Athenians of then and now.

Edits today
We are beginning the process of vetting and editing this article to conform with Wikipedia standards. Part of this was removing wholesale a lot of material that defied either WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR. The other part is tagging the article so we can begin the work of cleanup. Please comment if you think this effort is ill-founded. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you should discuss removals first. It is usual to request verification, or rewrite sections so that they conform to NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Living#Sources indicates that the subject may act as their own source, and undue weight allows specific topics to receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. --John294 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus gleaned from the last AfD was clear that the page needed paring down. Since no one was doing it, I was WP:BOLD and did so. The status quo was un-sustainable. If you have any thoughts on things that need adding, taking away, or reorganizing, let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest that your re-read WP:Bold which warns editors to be careful concerning "substantial changes or deletions to the articles", ie be bold, but "Be not too bold". The last AfD recommends "these issues should be dealt with through editing and not deletion".
 * If you can not get the verification you want, and if you are unable to rewrite text so that it complies to NPOV, and if others can not do the same, then by all means, par down. But don't flush potentially useful information down the toilet, it is disrespectful to the editors that have spent time contributing to the article.--John294 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at what ScienceApologist took out, I think it was largely justified. The article was looking too much like a padded resume. Even what is left contains too much that is not verifiable or not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Material has been removed that was not verified, not material that may not be verifiable. --John294 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The onus is on those who wish to keep the text to provide reliable, secondary source citations for the text. You are free to begin that process whenever you wish. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references." I have politely asked you to discuss the removal of material first, and request citations.
 * I do not dispute that some material may be unsuitable, may not be verified, may not be NPOV. But you are not giving anyone the chance. This is not collaborative editing. --John294 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The material is still available in the edit history. I see no indication that sources will be forthcoming. If you disagree, start a RfC or complain to WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

18:00 19 September, 2008 In its full version before the abusive deletions, this article was admitted to the Biography and Chicago portals, supported by the "Government and Politics" work group and the "Chicago" work group, and given a good rating by both. To delete material which is of interest to these groups is nothing less than sabotaging the article and hurting the purpose of the Wikipedia project. To delete a relevant external link (about University of the New World) and then claim that the proposition is not substantiated is also sabotage. To entirely delete information about the latest ideas in political science of an important political scientist of his generation is depriving the community at large and the political science community of information to wich it is entitled to, whether it agrees with these ideas or not. If an article about the founder of The American Behavioral Scientist (among other things) is supposed to be a vanity article, the Wikipedia project suffers more than the reputation of the subject of the article. These deletions seem at least in part malicious and may be motivated by disageement with some of the subject s ideas and positions. In which case, the editors risk disqualifying themselves for the very job they are supposed to be doing. Amideg - main author 18:15 19 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amideg (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need to read some policy pages before you start making proclamations like this. Wikiepdia works on consensus of the editors and articles often undergo massive reworking. While I admit to disagreeing strongly with de Grazia's "quantavolution" proposals and also admit to it being the reason I came upon this article, I'm willing to accept that this article should exist. What I don't accept is the sourcing being done solely to promotional websites and sources. Independent sources which discuss de Grazia would go a long way toward helping us improve the biography. If you have further problems, please contact the relevant sourcing, biography, neutrality, or fringe theory noticeboards. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. But you do not appear to have any consensus to delete all that material, nor have you given time for others to try and source the material. And yes, independent sources would be good, but "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves", and are sometimes adequate for biographies per WP:V --John294 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When you're ready to talk specifically about article content, please let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the main author of this articles. I have just added to the bibliographical list some thirty books of Alfred de Grazia in the domain of political science, all listed in the Catalogue of the Library of Congress. It should give an idea of his significance in the field of political science and make it clear that the original article sinned more through restraint than through vanity. With all due respect, I would like to know according to what criteria of editing someone would remove from an article a reference to the subject's having a PhD (while leaving a reference to his Bachelor Degree), and deleting the fact that he taught at University of Minnesota, Brown University and Stanford University... Does any one have a clue?? User: amideg 14:29, 1 October 2008 Amideg (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Head of psyops for 7th Army?
Did they actually do any psychological operations in Germany? There must be umpteen accounts of the push through Germany and if de Grazia played this role a reference could be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Okay, here's my chance. PsyOps was something done by specialists trained in the U.S. and brought in at some point after D-Day. My father Alfred Joseph deGrazia was with Generals Patton and Clark and the 3rd Army, now stationed in South Carolina, from the landing in Morocco to, through and after the Battle of the Bulge in France. His job was to go before the tanks in a jeep, test for or detect enemy presence, pick targets and scout for enemy anti-tank emplacements and enemy tanks. In France, all heck broke loose when the Tiger tanks were brought to the front by the Germans. They weren't any better than the Soviet T-34's, but they made the American Sherman tanks look like flimsy beer cans with their superior armor and artillery. Their powerful guns could easily penetrate Sherman tank armor, and their gun sites were better, too. My father was tearing around France in a tiny Jeep hunting for German tanks for most of 1943-44. You must understand tank warfare in Europe to understand his job. The tanks broke up into single, double and sometimes triple tank units accompanied by platoons of infantry, and hunted for the enemy in an attempt to engage them. When the enemy was detected, the range was closed to about a mile and the tanks would duel at that distance until friend or foe was knocked out. The winner of the tank duel would, with their infantry accompaniment, close on the enemy on finish them off. Now, the Tiger tanks won the tank duels disproportionately, and American and British losses were terrible; that is, until the Sherman tanks were retrofitted with heavier cannon. Then, the advantage was lost, and the German Mouse tank, even larger and more heavily armored, never was produced in quantities that would have an impact on the fighting.As to the Psychological Warfare part of his career, I would suggest the following from personal experience. Whey your duties include scouting out the enemy in areas the enemy is occupying, that job includes making contacts with the locals. At that point, you learn of the deeds of the enemy where the local population is concerned, as well as who is ready to come over, especially who of the community's leadership will join you. The pursuit of this process and all related matters are studied in the Psychological Warfare Department, simply as a matter of classification. There is no separate Contact with Those Occupied Bureau in the Department of Defense. Anyway, that was my experience in Europe; it appeared that my father's job was to encourage those liberated from Nazi control to adopt governments favorable to the Allies, even if they had been Fascists, before. If he committed a crime by doing so, it was through discouraging Communist efforts to fill the power vacuum. At this time, the Soviet Union was sending agents to Greece and Italy through their own liberated territories, the so-called Eastern Block, or Warsaw Pact nations. I would say that the propagandists that should be watched and scorned are those who say that Israel is strictly a European colonial state because there was no Holocaust, not the Americans and Britons who saw the results of the Holocaust. One wrong does not justify another, but you cannot deny the existence of the death camps, or the fact that my father and others visited them in the days after the Americans occupied the environs.

Good source
Michael Polanyi, "The growth of science in society", Minerva Volume 5, Number 4 / June, 1967 DOI 10.1007/BF01096782 Pages 533-545. I haven't got access to the full text at the moment, but it turned up when googling for de Grazia and American Behavioral Scientist. Polanyi was a very interesting philosopher of science. The article discusses the Velikovsky affair. I expect it argues that science needs to make its philosophical underpinning more explicit if it is to fight off pseudoscientific claims. Whatever, it may be a source for de Grazia's editorship of the journal, if nothing else. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence
Removing sentence in Quantavolution. Per WP:BLP. The one source here says

Thus, this one source is used as WP:SYNTH. This is the only mention of the name Grazia in the document according to search. And, it doesn't say he was defending V's work, either. Nor does it say that it was a version of V's ideas, but that it "differed markedly." Anyway, it's contentious, so put it back in with correction, no SYNTH, and with sources for what is being said. I removed the source itself, as it was merely used this way.

Now I am sure that Velikovskianism is bunk- I was sneering at it long before I came to WP. But this is not kosher. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Broke out the pruning shears
I've cut a lot of unsourced WP:BLP material and weasel-wording out of the article. If we're going to do a BLP right, we need to start with sourced material. I've also cut the list of works he's written; anything notable can be worked into the article text, rather than a sprawling list of everything he's written.

Finally, this section of reviews doesn't really belong in the article as-written, but could be a good source for citations in the article text itself. I've moved it from the article page to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds (talk • contribs) 14:01, September 30, 2009

Reviews of his books

 * William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Volume 3.8, Issue 3, p. 438 Alfred de Grazia. Public and Republic; Political Representation in America. Reviewed by Herbert N. Drennon
 * Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jun., 1951), p. 92 Alfred De Grazia. Public and Republic; Political Representation in America. Reviewed by S. H. Brockunier
 * American Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1954), pp. 88+90-91. The Elements of Political Science. by Alfred de Grazia. Review author: Steven Muller.
 * Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1985), pp. 284–288. Cosmic Heretics. by Alfred de Grazia. Review author: Henry H. Bauer.

Merge proposal
[For the avoidance of further confusion, the merge was nominated by User:Dbachmann in this edit, although they have made no comment here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC) ]

Wait and See It was proposed by another editor that this article be merged with Velikovskyism. I support that proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that many people whose activities have centered on Velikovsky, such as David Talbott, are good candidates for merging into a Velikovskyism entry, Alfred de Grazia is not one of them because most of his professional activities have not been associated with Velikovsky, but in other areas such as political science and societal conflicts. From the standpoint of Velikovskyism, de Grazia, while being a friend and counselor to Velikovsky and impetus behind the special issue of American Behavioral Scientist that was later published as the book The Velikovsky Affair (a fallacious brief for why scientists should pay attention to Velikovsky), was more an outsider with respect to the organized Velikovsky movement centered over time with Pensée, Kronos, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, and Aeon. De Grazia's relations with Velikovskians are clearly described in his 1984 book Cosmic Heretics. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My support is because he is not independently notable under WP:GNG, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR and so the only reason to mention him is really his association with Velikovskyism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. He's written more books than most (now removed from the article), founded the journal American Behavioral Scientist, is extensively references on both Google Books and Google Schoolar (excluding the keyword: Velikovsky), and is mentioned on over 4000 .edu websites. As Phaedrus7 says, most of his professional activities have not been associated with Velikovsky. --67.202.96.13 (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The references don't support notability. If you think it's notable put some references in. Simonm223 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Simonm223's proposal verges on the vexacious. He's an editor out to clamp down on pseudoscience within wikipedia, and as such he has this article in his sights. However whilst de Grazia did take an interest in Velikovsky, it is only a small part of his output as an academic, as the user posting from 67.202.96.13 and Phaedrus7 have explained. I do not feel it would be appropriate to merge the article as he proposes.feline1 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a quick point I didn't propose the merge. I just clicked on the "discuss" thread to show my support for it and then found no discussion thread had been started.  So I started the discussion thread.  As for "my proposal" being vexatious I have already said that my support for the merge is predicated on the lack of sources showing notability under WP:PROF and other associated notability guidelines.  My support for the merge would go away if the article was modified in such a manner as to demonstrate that his non-Velikovsky related achievements met our notability guidelines. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, I see you did not make the proposal... It's just that you have a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism" badge on your profile, which ironically always makes *me* sceptical of someone's editorial intentions ;) --feline1 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest you consult WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that Immanuel Velikovsky may be a highly imperfect merge-target, we run into the problem that (i) this article has far too little sourced content to survive on his own & (ii) that the only prominent (i.e. non-redlink) participant in the one activity of Grazia's that is sourced (i.e. the Université du Nouveau Monde) is Velikovsky -- which would appear to make it the only readily identifiable merge-target. The alternative would appear to be outright deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * de Grazia fulfils the "Basic criteria" for notability: "he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material", for example:
 * On government, in "The presidency and political science" by Raymond Tatalovic
 * On foundations, in "Creating the Cold War university" by Rebecca S. Lowen
 * On polical science, in "The power of money" by Henry L. Bretton
 * His war-time love-letters were noted by the Chicago Sun-Times
 * and many more


 * NB: "the subject of" ≠ 'merely mentioned in'. The subject of the first book is "the intellectual history of presidential scholarship", of the second is Stanford university, etc, etc. Grazia fails this criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And he fulfils the criteria on Creative Professional, for example:
 * He defined, and documented "The Velikovsky Affair" (see "Beyond Velikovsky" by Henry Bauer) This also fulfils WP:PROF
 * He founded and edited the journal, the American Behavioral Scientist.
 * He became director of the NYU Center of Social Research (per the New York Times)


 * Conclusion: He's notable in more than one area. The references are available, but might not he in his article 67.202.96.13 (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which of the specific criteria of WP:CREATIVE are you claiming these meet? They do not appear to be relevant to any of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Basic criteria says "published secondary source material", it does not say that someone has to be the subject of an entire book. It does say that "multiple independent sources may be needed", and that's exactly what we have. WP:CREATIVE is a guideline, not a legal document. de Grazia is a notable author with dozens of books published by well-known publishers, a notable academic (noted by the New York Times), and creative professional, on which there is published secondary source material on all categories. You may not have heard of him, and you may not think he has done enough, but compared to other articles on Wikipedia, his notability exceeds many. 67.202.96.13 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. It states that the topic must be "the subject of published secondary source material". If the "published secondary source material" is a book, then the topic must be "the subject of" that book. If "de Grazia is a notable author with dozens of books published by well-known publishers", then his books should be the subject of reviews in RSs. Where are these reviews? Only four have been unearthed to date. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. By your same logic, if the "published secondary source material" is a sentence, then the topic must be "the subject of" that sentence. Four reviews of his books is sufficient, and shows notability of those books, and hence the author. You can check the publishers of some of de Grazia's books, from the list that was removed from the article, you may have heard of (a) Barnes & Noble (b) Bantam Books (c) Doubleday (d) New York University Press. As Itsmejudith points out below, he meets WP:PROF, as is also shown by www.worldcat.org and the number of his books in libraries. Just picking one book at random, The western public, 1952 and beyond, worldcat shows it in over a 100 university libraries. Phaedrus7, feline1, Itsmejudith and myself have all presented examples demonstrating notability. This is probably why the article has also failed two AfDs where notability is also well-established. 67.202.96.13 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What was removed was neither a review, a secondary source, nor supports the wild claims you're making (Barnes & Noble aren't a publisher, among other things). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Having just added (on the basis of one of the reviews listed above) further sourced material, that even more closely ties de Grazia to Velikovsky, I support the merge, unless and until significant sourced material is added that demonstrates notability independent of Velikovsky. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger on the grounds that he meets WP:PROF purely on the basis of his very mainstream political science scholarship. However, attempts to spin it towards his views should be resisted. All improbable claims and Velikovsky-cruft should be rigorously removed. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that he wrote two books in defence of Velikovsky & went off to Switzerland with him to form a university (which also happens to be the only sourced information about him in the article), it seems unlikely that we can avoid the subject of Velikovsky in this article. Whilst the "very mainstream political science scholarship" may exist, we have no verifiable evidence for it at this stage. If you would like to document it (with sources) in the article, then that would be welcome. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a decent bibliography in an earlier version. He has 188 entries in COPAC, the joint catalogue of UK academic libraries. That includes duplication (one book available in several libraries) but it's still a lot. Jerome Bruner wrote the introduction to his edited collection on education, again that points to notability. After that, he went off on the Velikovsky tack, which I think merits a sentence or two. There'll have been lots of reviews of early books, but in 1960s press, i.e. not on line. It'll take a while to track them. I seem to remember doing a search in the ISI, which yielded citations. Will look it up or search again. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * |This earlier version had a short bibliography and listed some reviews. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Those reviews are listed in above. I agree that a short bibliography is appropriate. However by the time of the most recent pruning it'd grown into the monstrosity seen in this version, which was subsequently deleted. Do we have a consensus for restoration of the shorter original? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I think is most appropriate, yes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

regarding the "vexacious" comment form above: this isn't about pseudoscience or no pseudoscience, it is about straightforward Notability. If Velikovskyism is "only a small part of [Garzia's] [notable] output as an academic", then the burden is on you to establish notability. If you cannot do that, you have no business opposing a merger. I do not see any evidence of "significant coverage in independent third party publications". If there is such coverage, kindly provide the citations. If there isn't, there is no way this can remain a standalone article. It's as simple as that, and accusations of bias in other editors is not going to take away the fact that if you want to keep the article, the burden of establishing notability lies with you. I do not see "wrote some books that got reviewed" under WP:AUTHOR. Instead, you must establish a reasonable claim that Garzia either the closest we get to this at present would seem to be "has created a collective body of work that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
 * is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

So, where are the "multiple periodical articles or reviews" that establish the notability of Garzia's body of work? They certainly do not figure in the current revision of the article. If they cannot be produced, this article cannot be maintained. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Meets WP:PROF 8 as editor of American Behavioral Scientist. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Velikovskyism" itself, does not appear notable, let alone associated with anyone, and I can find no reliable sources that help. Grazia is notable in his own right for "The Velikovsky Affair". Just because his subject is Velikovsky does not diminish his notability. Several other examples of de Grazia's notability have been established by others here (eg. WP:PROF and the subject of a section in a book). Reviews of de Grazia's books are not a problem. See for example: Someone else can look up the details, and look for more. 67.202.96.13 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Republic in Crisis, reviewed in the North Adams Transcript, Feb 2, 1966, and the Daily Capital News, Dec 28, 1965
 * The Western Public, reviewed im the San Antonio Light, Oct 24, 1954
 * Congress, The First Branch of Government, reviewed in the Gazette-Mail (Charleston), Aug 6, 1967, and the Danville Register, July 17, 1966 (and elsewhere)
 * "War Love letters" (mentioned earlier)", reviewed in The Capital (Annapolis), Feb 13, 1997
 * Here he is as a professor of political science and expert on the US constitution giving evidence to a congressional subcommittee. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are going out of your way to torture WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR into including de Grazia. So de Grazia founded the ABS journal in 1957, under a different name. That journal was later acquired by a notable publisher and can now be considered a notable academic journal. There is no evidence that the journal was anything of the kind while de Grazia edited it. In fact, there is every indication that de Grazia is a complete crank with no understanding of the basic concept of "science" (as the Skeptical Inquirer review notes) and arguing WP:PROF notability would in fact defeat the entire purpose of that guideline. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wherever did I say he wasn't a complete crank! Fact: he was a normal - boring - political scientist. Expert on the division of powers in the US constitution. ABS under his editorship was plodding along in a mainstream way. Fact: he devoted a whole issue of a journal to supporting Velikovsky. Fact: William Burroughs turns up to teach at a non-existent university. You couldn't make it up. Weird. Notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The contents pages are on Sage's website. He published Seymour Lipset, Fernand Braudel, John Dewey and Raymond Aron. And then he discovered Velikovsky.... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger – given that much of the material was written decades pre-www, there seems to be an astonishing amount online about this guy. The word 'vexatious' above seems apt. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Morgan quote
In response to a request for a quote from Ted Morgan's Literary Outlaw: The Life and Times of William S. Burroughs (held by over 900 libraries worldwide) supporting the citation in the de Grazia entry, here is the passage on pp. 453-454 (demarcating the book's line lengths with "/" and paragraphs with "¶") concerning de Grazia's University of the New World in Switzerland:

Begin passage/quote:

Sounds like Princeton University, upon which the University of the New World was modeled.
We, his children and wife, lived in Princeton near to the infamous Prospect Avenue eating clubs; in fact, our first house in Princeton had been the home of the Colonial Club, and the clubbies returned once to steal a Picasso painting off my parents' bedroom wall. Now, if you want to see what life is like at a latter-day university, read this report made for the benefit of a contact I have in the FBI. You will see that coke (cocaine) is a primary mover of all things, great and small, and that Tesla physics, just the kind of thing my father would have fostered, is the second most important thing in the world. Unfortunately, the high-voltage physics can be lethal and weaponized, and you will see from the reading that the results are tragic, beyond belief. http://www.princetonweb.org/fbi.pdf

End passage/quote.

Make use of this text as needed. Additional information may be gleaned from the Velikovsky Encyclopedia and a google.com search on , although apparently the text for Cosmic Heretics containing two pages on the subject is no longer available. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From the quote, I'd say the passage in the article is fairly heavy WP:Synthesis. It seems to have been a mixture of culture-clash and (perfectly justified) skepticism of the University's business practices rather than "uncomprehension [sic]". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, the original text in the quote above was from the 1988 hardcover Henry Holt edition, which was changed for the 1990 Avon paperback as the result of a law suit by DeGrazia against Henry Holt & Co. and Ted Morgan, as reported by DeGrazia via email to me. In accordance with WP:LIBEL, this quote has been modified to conform to the 1990 version. The changes affect text in lines 24-27 and 35-35a-36 in the quote above from pp. 453-454 in Chap. 17: The London Years, whose source implicitly is Burroughs interview with author Morgan since the topics fore and aft, namely "Death of mother" and "Visit to Hollywood", are explicitly sourced to "BI", Burroughs interview, plus "Terry Southern to author" as a second source for the aft topic. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Material unrelated to the Morgan quote
Even more reviews of de Grazia's books (which were removed from his article):
 * William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Volume 3.8, Issue 3, p. 438 Alfred de Grazia. Public and Republic; Political Representation in America. Reviewed by Herbert N. Drennon
 * Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jun., 1951), p. 92 Alfred De Grazia. Public and Republic; Political Representation in America. Reviewed by S. H. Brockunier
 * American Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1954), pp. 88+90-91. The Elements of Political Science. by Alfred de Grazia. Review author: Steven Muller.
 * Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1985), pp. 284–288. Cosmic Heretics. by Alfred de Grazia. Review author: Henry H. Bauer.

So which notability criteria are we going to claim he fails now? 67.202.96.13 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So include the references in the article linking to information about what the refs say. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to keep contributing to the article (while I'm actively editing WP) and adding sourced stuff. Right now we're discussing merger. If you check the history and the talk page above you will see that I worked on it this time last year. Of course when I first looked at the article I wondered whether the subject was notable. But when I saw it had already survived two AfDs I rolled my sleeves up and got to work, asking the well-known Velikovsky fan User:ScienceApologist to help out. You'll see that I've consistently pulled the article back towards what is notable and verifiable. Googling today I saw that de Grazia was mentioned by name in discussions about the status of science by both Michael Polanyi and Imre Lakatos. We have then 1) notability for the political science career alone (founding editorship of a quality academic journal swings WP:PROF) 2) notability for defence of Velikovsky, discussed by leading philosphers of science and 3) notability for some of the later stuff, if only through relationship to Burroughs. Obviously a proliferation of Velikovsky-related POV and vanity articles is a problem. Full marks to those who are cleaning it all up. But please, this particular one actually happens to be notable and has to stay and be improved and constantly policed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying but I think you may misunderstand me. Improve the article rather than posting links into the discussion here and I will withdraw my support.  Because this merge discussion has gone on a while and not one of those supposedly notability confirming references has actually made it into the article.  Simonm223 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd need to put a bit of thought, and get some consensus, as to how best to start working on the article again. I'd be very tempted to revert to the last version I edited, in 2008. Since then User:Amideg (Ami = Anne Marie de Grazia) has taken out a lot of the stuff that attests to notability and put in a lot of useless fancruft. But there might have also been some useful edits in the meantime, so it all needs unpacking. If I'm not simply adding to the article right now, that's why, plus I don't want to spend time on it again if it's for the chop. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A few points: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The list of reviews is already in above. And I have in fact used one of them to contribute sourced information to the article. If the others contain useful information relevant to notability, then add this information, with source, to the article.
 * 2) If sourced information relevant to notability has been replaced with unsourced/poorly-sourced fancruft, then these changes should have been reverted at the time (that's why we have watchlists). I will however note that the last version you edited had only a single third-party reference (that made only brief mention of Grazia), loads of (completely unnecessary) links to his archive-site for the bare existence of his various publications, and scads of fact-tags. It does not make for a good basis for further progress. If you want to source and add any of the unsourced statements from it, then you are welcome to.
 * You're right, that wasn't a brilliant version at all. I've stubbed the current version down a bit to what I think is going to be verifiable. Can we allow a couple of weeks to pursue refs and then see what we have? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What are we doing, discussing a merger, or working together on the article?
Can't have it both ways. Either we first come to a consensus about whether the article goes or stays, and then work on it. Or we just work on it.

Simon, could you say what you didn't like about my changes you reverted? They responded to comments made above here. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For myself, I have every intention of 'having it both ways' -- developing the article, but still registering a 'merge' vote as long as the bulk of the article overlaps Velikovsky. I'll strike that vote if/when the article articulates (& sources) notability independent of Velikovsky. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Slow Down Request
has recently made a whole bunch of edits. Now some of these I think are harmful to the NPoV of the article. Others may in fact point to notability of the subject. Problem is that so much has been changed that going back and sorting out viable references, pov affecting changes, etc. will take some time. Please slow your edits down a bit so that other editors can assess. It would be a shame if somebody came along, saw mass changes and reverted everything if there is, in fact, valid references in that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that I only started making edits in mainspace because I was challenged to. See posts above "how can you argue he is notable when you haven't added the points to the article?". Damned if you do and damned if you don't! And note that my change to the way the Morgan source was summarised was a response to a comment that the previous version was OS. Hrafn's wait-and-see position is sensible. In fact it was what I thought myself when I heard that the article was up for merger. Hrafn, would you like to have a look through the contents pages of ABI, on the Sage link I posted, and consider whether notability is established simply on the grounds of being founding editor of that journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Foundation for Studies in Modern Science
De Grazia's interest in Velikovsky's ideas extends beyond the two books The Velikovsky Affair (1966) and Cosmic Heretics (1984). In 1968, de Grazia founded and became the first president of an independent organization whose purpose was to research and promote Velikovsky's ideas. This organization was the Foundation for Studies in Modern Science whose history is recounted in Cosmic Heretics, pp. 213-229, in Chapter 12: "The Third World of Science". In addition to de Grazia, the Board of Trustees was comprised of Richard P. Kramer, Livio Stecchini, Ralph Juergens (co-author/editor, The Velikovsky Affair), Horace Kallen, Harry H. Hess, A. Bruce Mainwaring (presently a Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania), John Holbrook, Jr., Robert C. Stephanos (founded the Comyns Beaumont Society in 1975), and Warner Sizemore (co-founder of Kronos in 1974). The foundation was defunct by 1972, but not for a lack of trying and in part due to Velikovsky's behind the scenes meddling. Contrary to my comment yesterday, content in Cosmic Heretics can be accessed via google.com searches using well-chosen key words/phrases. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bauer book
Do we have consensus that Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky 1984 University of Illinois is an excellent source for this article (as long as it remains in existence) and indeed for all Velikovsky related articles? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I most certainly agree -- I suspect several other, related, articles would probably benefit from it as well. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bauer's book (held by over 550 libraries) is very authoritative with respect to Velikovsky and the reviews in the mainstream literature were uniformly positive. However, it should be kept in mind that de Grazia does not figure prominently in the book and, except for minor additions to the text immediately prior to publication, the manuscript was completed by 1979 before de Grazia's "Quantavolution" book series was published in the early 1980s. Bauer's take on de Grazia vis a vis Velikovsky is best monitored in his review of Cosmic Heretics in Summer 1985 Skeptical Inquirer. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition from Lowen book
As mentioned above, de Grazia's academic career is touched upon in Rebecca S. Lowen. Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

I think we could usefully have something like the following:

"In 1952 de Grazia was appointed director of the Committee for Research in the Social Sciences at Stanford University. The appointment was supported by a Ford Foundation grant. Lowen (1997) described him as "a political scientist deeply committed to scientizing his disciplin and promoting studies of political behavior". In 1955 he was turned down for tenure at Stanford.

Please discuss. You can see the full text in google books - there's a link above here. The context for Lowen's mention of deG is that she argues that during the Cold War there was pressure in Stanford to curtail the activities even of dispassionate social scientists, if they were not actively promoting an anti-communist agenda. She casts deG as one of those social scientists, which is consistent with what we glean from other sources about his academic work in this period. Her book is an academic one but I haven't looked to see how it was received.

If this article is to stay (how long will the merge discussion stay open?) then we need detail of the universities where he worked. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple more articles
Mark Solovey "Rethinking the Politics–Patronage–Social Science Nexus" Social Studies of Science 31/2(April 2001) 171–206 lists de Grazia as having been involved in the design of Project Camelot, but then becoming unhappy with it.

In a footnote, he says:

Alfred de Grazia is quoted at length in Gideon Sjoberg, ‘Project Camelot: Selected Reactions and Personal Reflections’, in Sjoberg (ed.), Ethics, Politics, and Social Research (Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1967), 141–61, at 143–45.

I would think this is more material that should be reflected in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is how I first encountered this article
Discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. You will see I don't have a hidden agenda to promote the guy's views - unless you think there is a very deep conspiracy indeed here. My memory was poor; I thought I alerted ScienceApologist but it was the other way round. Now I have read more, I think the subject does meet WP:PROF. Shows how a cursory glance can be wrong. Itsmejudith (talk)

The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.
 * I don't think that you've got a "hidden agenda", just that de Grazia's pro-Velikovsky crankery has got longer legs to it than his more solid, but less remarkable, scholarship. And if the latter is what third parties remember, and comment upon, then we have little choice but to give this WP:DUE. You may well be right that there is material to demonstrate that he has a notability relevant to WP:PROF beyond his entanglement with Velikovsky -- but policy still requires us to come up with reliable independent sources to verify this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added some more information about his academic career. None of it (yet) rises to the level of WP:PROF, but should help on WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. BTW, I posted on the admin noticeboard to ask whether the merge discussion should be closed yet and if so that someone could do it for us. I'm not sure what the protocol is. If you don't agree it should be closed, please post here or there and I'm sure your view will be taken into account. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

De Grazia's Wives
See Talk item no. 3 above about de Grazia's wives. His current wife, at least no. 3, is Ami de Grazia, the former Anne-Marie Hueber, a French novelist, and editor of early versions of this entry. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates for ABS?
We have a citation needed tag on the journal being renamed and acquired by Sage. Sage's own catalogue shows that it is published by them today; that's trivial. The contents pages (on Sage's website) show, in various article titles, that it was ABS in the early 1960s, and although the contents from the first edition are available they do not indicate the journal name. Can we find out from some RS or other when it was renamed and when acquired by Sage? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Drawing on the journal's entry in OCLC's WorldCat database and that title's entry in The Velikovsky Encyclopedia, de Grazia founded it in 1957 as Political Research, Organization and Design (P.R.O.D.), with the name changed to The American Behavioral Scientist with vol. 4, no. 1, in Sept. 1960. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any third-party sources (other than mere catalogue entries) demonstrating the noteworthiness of any of the following points: Otherwise I would suggest (per WP:DUE) reducing coverage of it to a mere parenthetical note mentioning that he founded it (with source), in the existing mention of it in 'Support for Velikovsky'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The journal's founding
 * 2) That it was known for a brief time as Political Research, Organization and Design (P.R.O.D.)
 * 3) That it was acquired by Sage.

Institute of Quantavolution (I.Q.)
Since the entry treats de Grazia's early 1970s experimental University of the New World in Switzerland, perhaps a fuller appreciation of the man might be gleaned from a knowledge of his February 20, 1980, proposal to the Open University at the University of Maryland for a two year pilot program in a new Institute of Quantavolution, which de Grazia presents in his The Burning of Troy, Chapter 29, "I.Q.: A University Program". The proposal was turned down; but no one can justifiably dismiss de Grazia for being "half vast" and the proposal establishes his bona fides in writing grant proposals. Regrettably, there is no third-party source for this initiative. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with de Grazia doesn't appear to be that his proposals were "half vast" but that it appears that he lacked the intellectual insight to pick winning horses ("Quantavolution" always had the hallmarks of a lead balloon, as did his Palestine solution) and the organisational flair to create something self-sustaining ("University of the New World", the "Kalos movement") or even getting off the ground at all on occasion ("Institute of Quantavolution"). This all makes de Grazia seem more than a little quixotic. An academic interested in doing more than "tilting against windmills" would generally work on, and achieve reasonable success at, gaining legitimacy for a field before proposing that an "Institute" be set up to study it. Do we even know if this "proposal" was even formally presented to the University of Maryland for consideration, or if it is a mere 'pipe dream' of de Grazia's? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer Hrafn's query: Although I was not personally present at the University of Maryland presentation on Feb. 20, 1980, De Grazia and I met over cocktails later that afternoon in the bar at The Capitol Hilton on Sixteenth Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C., where he told me all about the meeting and indicated that I could have a position on the faculty. In Cosmic Heretics, Chapter 15: "The Knowledge Industry", pp. 303-305, De Grazia describes a similar, unsuccessful proposal October 29, 1973, for a summer program at New York University, his home base. Cosmic Heretics is quite an autobiographical, if very non-linear, presentation in which De Grazia reveals many details about his personal life, including his "philandering" (p. 108), and his life with wife number two, Nina Mavridis (pp. 132-3 in Ch. 8; pp. 322-5 in Ch. 15) whom he met in New York in 1967, and wife number three (and currently), Anne Marie Hueber (p. 329 in Ch. 15) whom he met on Naxos in early 1970s while married to Mavridis and married in 1982. Along the way in Cosmic Heretics, De Grazia confesses to having spent a mere eight months over a twevle year period on mainstream professional activities, the rest of the time having been devoted to various Velikovskian cum quantavolution projects. Fortunately, De Grazia has uploaded a concordance to his quantavolution publications which permits easy searching. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A published, third-party source for all this would be preferable. And I would argue that "writing grant proposals" that were not accepted (and judging from the lack of acceptance of the underlying field of study, were highly unlikely to be accepted) does not "establish[] his bona fides". Also your degree of personal involvement with de Grazia indicates that you should take a good hard look at WP:COI. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All this makes me think we should keep to a minimum all coverage of projects after his espousal of the Velikovsky cause. We have independent coverage of the University of the New World, so that can stay in. Even that should be brief, although I would like to squeeze in a mention of William Burroughs, since Burroughs' involvement is what swings that failed university project into notability. It would be good to include the date when his editorship of ABS ended. In principle, Cosmic Heretics is not a reliable source for this biography, but it may be acceptable for information that is unlikely to be contentious, including certain dates. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we want to "squeeze in a mention of William Burroughs" then we need to make the primary link to de Grazia, not Morgan. The issue we should be articulating is why Burroughs is noteworthy in context of the topic, not why de Grazia is noteworthy in the context of the source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding DeGrazia's tenure as editor of ABS, according to Who's Who in America, 37th edition, 1972-1973, p. 772, it extended from 1957 to 1966. Granting DeGrazia's credulity with respect to Quantavolution as a valid rival to mainstream science, he knew how to write a professionally competent proposal which would have stood a good chance of acceptance were its subject institutionally acceptable. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Who's Who in America is essentially a WP:SPS (see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24)
 * 2) Your claim that "he knew how to write a professionally competent proposal" is a WP:OR (and WP:COI) opinion and largely moot as we currently have no evidence that he ever wrote one on a "subject [that was] institutionally acceptable" to put it to the test. It also calls into question his 'professional competence' that he chose clearly 'institutionally unacceptable" subjects for his proposals.
 * Of course he was perfectly capable of writing a normal funding proposal, but not capable of writing one that would bring in funding for work on "Quantavolution". You could be the best bid-writer in the world and still not be able to swing that one! Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the Burroughs ref, it's not a big deal for me at all. The current wording looks good. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Amideg's edits
I reverted these as they would discussion here. Amideg, you must remember that you have a conflict of interest. If you edit at all you must do so with the greatest caution and not promote your own/your husband's interests. Here are my thoughts:
 * Background section. Irrelevant. Article is about the subject, not his family.
 * WW2. Perhaps we could note the existence of the wartime correspondence if it is independently mentioned. Needs discussion.
 * Exact date of wedding. No. Clearly unencyclopedic.
 * Delete "Alfred de Grazia" from the book titles. Yes, better, please go ahead.
 * Later books. Would prefer them not to be listed individually, instead a note "and X other books", but see Gary Null.
 * ELs. No more please, and perhaps take out those already there.

Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And I see that Gary's Null's books have recently been culled from his article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree on all points. It is unbalanced to have a list of works dominating the article. Also, AFAIK Gale does not include an end-date for his NYU professorship (so it should not be cited to that source). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Amideg. On December 1st, 2009 I reinstated several paragraphs of the article, adding new and strong references. Everything I added was deleted by ItsmeJudith less than half an hour later, making it impossible for anybody to judge my additions. What is very strange and puzzling, is that there is no longer any trace of the changes I made, nor of the references, nor of ItsmeJudith's deletions on the discussion page. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? I would also like to correct the ridiculous assertions of Phaedrus7 about Alfred de Grazia's "philandering." Alfred de Grazia divorced Nina Mavridis in 1974 and met Anne-Marie Hueber de Grazia in 1977. The fact that Phaedrus7 should even bring up something like this in an attempt to attack Alfred de Grazia's character should alert editors to his biased and unprofessional attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amideg (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Amideg) - Please, see above. —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

This is Phaedrus7 in response to Amideg's baseless accusations above. The remarks of mine to which she objects were all referenced to pages in Alfred DeGrazia's Cosmic Heretics, but she does not refer to this substantiation which indicates that DeGrazia met the woman who would become his third wife on Naxos while still married to his second wife. As for DeGrazia's "philandering", a word in quotes because it was written by DeGrazia, a simple search on Google for <philandering "cosmic heretics"> yields the following paragraph in which DeGrazia implicitly admits to such behavior in commenting on Velikovsky's reaction to DeGrazia's divorce from his second wife:

"V. liked Nina, Deg's second wife, who was at the Swiss college on and off. Deg recalls an especially vivid image of the two of them silhouetted in the sunshine and snow against the Alps on the road to Haute-Nendez, talking volubly in Russian. Long after, Deg was reporting to him that Nina had gone to Berlin to marry Peter Bockelmann -- a fine musicologist said Deg, and a fine man. Whereupon V. began to speak of Tolstoi's "Kreutzer Sonata," a story in which a husband, according to V., enjoys sexuality homosexually by turning his wife over to another man. Deg was amused at this. He had been happy that she had found so good a friend after their separation. What were V.'s motives for the story -- his liking for Nina, his dislike of Germans, his need to carry a dubious theory into every human relation, a jealousy of Deg's philandering, a homosexual impulse of his own? That is to say, when it came to conjecturing and examing motives, Deg was unwilling to let others escape. Or perhaps V. just had not gotten the story straight; the couple separated, but they were still friends: it was a plot not to be found in V.'s manual."

Since I do not have ready access to the paginated book itself, after consulting it later today I shall provide additional substantiation for the accuracy of my comments if needed. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now consulted my copy of Cosmic Heretics and upon a closer reading see that I improperly assumed, in the absence of a definitive time line and/or dates for events in DeGrazia's narrative, that he met his third wife on Naxos while still married to his second wife. I accept Amideg's version of the dates and apologize for my mistake. However, DeGrazia implicitly admits to his "philandering" on p. 108, as quoted above, and any person with an appreciation for delicate innuendo in literature will understand from DeGrazia's accounts in Cosmic Heretics of his relationships with women in Naxos, Nevis, Saigon, and New York that DeGrazia fully enjoys the company of women. Contrary to Amideg's accusation, I had no malicious intent when I reported these aspects of DeGrazia's biography. I merely wanted to describe the audacious tenor of DeGrazia's narrative. Phaedrus7 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Amideg: my recent edits
Here is Amideg. There have been questions about reviews of the books of Alfred de Grazia. I have added to the article EIGHT references of major reviews in major publications for his first book alone, Public and Republic, his PhD thesis published by Alfred Knopf in 1951. Here they are: ^ American Political Science Review 45:882 S 1951 650w review by M. J. Fisher ^ Annals of the American Academy, 276:141 Jl 1951, 350w review by Frank Paddock ^ Canadian History Review 32:170 Je 1951 350w review by R.A. Preston ^ New York Herald Tribune Book Review p13 March 18, 1951 450w review by August Heckscher: "A sober scholarly volume, authoritative in its field." ^ The New York Times, p.6 August 26, 1951, 350w by W.E. Binkley: “A thoroughgoing examination of the meaning of representation, the fundamental element in any definition of republic.” ^ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series 8, 1951, review by Herbert N. Drennon ^ Booklist 47:232 March 1st, 1951 ^ U.S. Quarterly Book Review7:163 Je 1951, 210w ^ Library Journal 76:408 March 1st, 1951 130w review by R. W. Henderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amideg (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the "Universal Reference System." It is a pioneering creation of Alfred de Grazia, as can be seen from article by Cliford Brock in "Library Trends," April 1967,  which can be consulted on U. of Illinois IDEALS site (www.illinois.ideals.edu) when calling up the name of Cliford Brock:

"The leading exponent-and practitioner-in this area, however, has been Alfred de Grazia, professor of government at New York University and founder-editor of the American Behavioral Scientist, originally entitled PROD; Political Research: Organization and Design. The fist issues of PROD in the late 1950’s contained very brief bibliographies of current political science literature, and this effort gradually evolved into a special section of the American Behavioral Scientist entitled “New Studies: a guide to recent publications in the social and behavioral sciences.” This work alerted de Grazia to the “increasing bibliographic frustration” among social scientist, to the problems of manual control, and to the potentialities of machine applications. In 1960 he wrote: “The gentle lady who gives you your library book may soon be as rare as ‘pop and mom’s’ corner grocery store. The reason is the same; just as the chain stores and supermarket have taken over food supply and distribution functions, new forms of organization may soon supplant the traditional library system and the library research techniques used by present-day scholars and librarians. Through the early 1960’s de Grazia made the American Behavioral Scientist a forum for writings on bibliographic and data problems in the social sciences. By 1963 he had developed a “Topical and Methodological Index,” a special social science classification system consisting of some 250 terms emphasizing methodological and theoretical approaches and adaptable to computerization. This classification system was further refined and in 1965 was applied to the first of a projected ten-volume series of bibliographies in “Political Science, Government, and Public Policy.” Volume 1 of this Universal Reference System series, on "International Afairs" (New York, 1965),was produced on IBM 1401/1410computers and contains citations, annotations, and indexed descriptors of over 3,000 books and articles (...)" I have added the titles of the ten volumes of the Universal Reference System showing the range of fields covered.

Amideg (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

Velikovsky's Central Claim?
In the section "Support for Velikovsky", Velikovsky's central claim is misrepresented and this obscuration should be clarified. Velikovsky's claim was not merely that Earth has suffered extra-terrestrially caused catastrophes in the past 15,000 years. Specifically, Velikovsky's central claim concerned Earth suffering cosmic catastrophes caused by planets Venus and Mars within the past 3,500 years. As described presently, Velikovsky's astronomically impossible planetary model is comparable to the astronomically feasible cometary model of Victor Clube and Bill Napier abetted by the parallel work of Mike Baillie. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Amideg: more of my edits
I have made changes to the opening sentence to reflect more accurately the activities of Alfred de Grazia. I have moved a New York Times assessment of his first book "Public and Republic" to the text of the article. I have added a footnote about his book "Political Behavior" showing a recent (2007) assessment of this work: "A seminal treatment of the subject of charismatic leadership and political organizations," in Thomas H. Johnson, Chris Mason: "Understanding the Taliban and Insurgency in Afghanistan," 2007, attesting to the relevance of his work in present times. Amideg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

Amideg: edit February 3, 2010
I have reinstated the paragraph on "Military Activity" which has been repeatedly erased, the last time after 17 minutes. One editor seems to doubt that there were psy ops in WWII. A 1958 biographical notice for Alfred de Grazia in JSTOR Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science states clearly:

"Dr. de Grazia has taught Political Science at Minnesota, Brown, Columbia and Stanford Universities and has served as Captain engaged in psychological welfare in Africa and Europe during World War II."  The archives of Georgetown University Library keep a copy of a study in Psychological Warfare that Alfred de Grazia and later US Ambassador Martin Herz produced for the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force

The Ritchie Boys were mainly German speaking Jewish intellectuals and refugees who had fled Hitler's Germany and were trained at the "spy-camp" at Camp Ritchie, Maryland, in psychological warfare and propaganda. Alfred de Grazia was also a trainee there. He gave advice and contributed pictures for the making of the German-Canadian documentary by Christian Bauer, as can be seen in the credits.

Alfred de Grazia has written extensively about his experiences in WWII in his book The Taste of War and according to Wikipedia regulations for biographical articles, writings by the subject of an article are valid references. Amideg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Anything can go back in so long as it is reliably sourced. Of course there were psyops in WW2. The question is what we can say for sure about Alfred de Grazia's involvement with them. Please look again at WP:BLP. The book The Taste of War can only be used if it is "not unduly self-serving". We can discuss here if it should be regarded as self-serving. The film credits reference IMHO is far too thin. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Amideg here. Editor puts in “citation needed” for Alfred de Grazia having been active in psychological warfare during WWII. I had mentioned in my comments a 1958 biographical notice on JSTOR, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science that: "Dr. de Grazia has taught Political Science at Minnesota, Brown, Columbia and Stanford Universities and has served as Captain engaged in psychological welfare in Africa and Europe during World War II." I mentioned in a footnote that the archives of Georgetown University Library keep a copy of a study in Psychological Warfare that Alfred de Grazia and later US Ambassador Martin Herz produced for the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force. I thought that this would be enough to establish that subject was active in psychological warfare. I will therefore add the Annals of the American Academy quote to the references to satisfy editor.

Can editor believe that someone who writes a report in psychological warfare for Headquarters has not received any training in this matter? Why then remove the information that he was trained at “OSS in Washington, DC, and in the newly established Camp Ritchie, Maryland?” These experiences are described in subject’s autobiographical work on WWII “The Taste of War.”

Additional reference which I gave for his having been trained at Camp Ritchie comes from a Canadian-German documentary film “The Ritchie Boys,” by Christian Bauer, short-listed for the Academy-Awards in 2005 and shown on TV channels all over the world. Alfred de Grazia’s name appears in the credits as part of a list: “Our thanks to the Ritchie Boys and their girls who have shared their stories with us:–“ Why would this not be an acceptable reference to prove subject’s having been at Camp Ritchie? Is an Academy-Award listed documentary less valid as a source of information than a newspaper article? Why remove the reference and link to this documentary?

Why remove the reference to the autobiography “The Taste of War”? If editor estimates that this autobiography is “unduly self-serving” and therefore not valid as a reference for wikipedia, the onus of the proof rests on editor. This accusation is not consistent with the rest of subject’s extensive published work. (See references, list of works, critiques of his work.) The “Taste of War” is available on the internet. Why remove the link that would allow the reader to judge by himself?

I wrote: “With his fiancée, then wife, journalist Jill Oppenheim, he carried on a home-front/war-front correspondence of well over 2,000 lengthy letters (why remove the number of letters and replace it with “extensive?” Is it not significant? Wouldn’t 200 letters also be called an extensive correspondence?) possibly the largest such correspondence of WWII preserved extant, published on the web under title “Letters of Love and War.”  Why remove the link to the letters on the net? Shouldn't the interested wikipedia user be able to check them out? Respectfully, Amideg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

I have modified opening paragraph. An editor has removed the mention of Alfred de Grazia being an “educator.” A person who has taught in universities for four decades can surely be termed an “educator.” Same editor has removed the mention of subject being a “writer.”

I had written... “Alfred de Grazia is a political scientist, a writer and an educator. He has defended the catastrophism thesis of Velikovsky.” Which, if anything, puts too much emphasis on Velikovsky. This was changed to: “Alfred de Grazia is a political scientist who has defended the catastrophism thesis of Immanuel Velikovsky.”

To define a person with subject’s record as a political scientist (see references) as “a political scientist who has supported the catastrophism theories of Immanuel Velikovsky,” as if Velikovsky had been the emphasis of his work as a political scientist, is reductive and misleading. He is a political scientist who has written many books (over 20, in fact) and taught many courses on subjects which had nothing to do with Velikovsky.Amideg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Sorry, Amideg, but this is why we don't encourage editing by people close to the article subject. AdG is notable as a political scientist who supported Velikovsky. End of. His later books can be listed (perhaps, not sure if everyone agrees), but they are not an important part of this biography. Not important enough for the lede. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Quantavolution vis a vis Velikovsky
Editors should be aware that de Grazia believes Velikovsky was NOT a catastrophist, but a Velikovskian and that his concept of Quantavolution was the true expression of recent, global catastrophism, of which Velikovsky's model was only one example. This is the sense intended to be conveyed by the edit done with respect to "Velikovsky's central claim" and "Quantavolution". Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The text has now been co-ordinated with what Henry Bauer actually wrote in his review of Cosmic Heretics, the point of reference for this passage. The relevant sentences by Bauer are as follows:  "He in fact believes Velikovsky's most general claim [n.b., NOT "central" claim], that the earth and its inhabitants have been crucially influenced by recurring catastrophes of global extent, occasioned by extraterrestrial agents in very recent times (the past 15,000 years or so). That belief, or set of beliefs, de Grazia terms quantavolution. . . . And in places Deg [i.e., de Grazia] seems to reveal a touch of megalomania--implicitly when he presents himself as architect of the grand quantavolutionary synthesis, explicitly when he sees himself as superseding Velikovsky in that role."  By changing "most general claim" to "central claim" the emphasis was shifted from generic "extraterrestrial agents" to Velikovsky's specific agents, the planets Venus and Mars. It should also be noted that de Grazia in other publications, such as his Chaos and Creation, fancied that such critics of Velikovsky as Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan were also "quantavolutionists" by virtue of their embracing global catastrophes occasioned by "extraterrestrial agents", i.e., ordinary comets and asteroids, NOT planets. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

August 2015
I have established my case; the picture shown and the actual picture of my father that has been uploaded to Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/pin/347340189988471388/ are not the same person; anyone can see that. Why are you so insistent on putting a fake holocaust picture on the page? This is a very important matter. The German people must pay reparations for the crimes of the Nazis, and so every bit of evidence is extremely important. I'm not saying he wasn't in the camps at the end of the War, but that isn't him. You are flying in the face of reason and logic by allowing that picture to remain there. It will throw doubt on other evidence associated with his written records of an epoch. Jagtig (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a very important image, and as one of his children who studied at NYU where he taught politics and had the use of his office, I should clear up the provenance of the image, though I did not post it and do not know who uploaded it to Wikicommons. It's importance stems from the fact that Holocaust-deniers are questioning all such evidence, and point to the marked dissimilarity of all images of Alfred Joseph de Grazia from the one shown to support the claim that he was merely a propagandist and the image is in the way of propaganda, and not proof of the atrocities alleged. You may be aware that Holocaust denial is a crime in some countries, and could bring jail time if proved. In fact, the picture is not of my father Alfred Joseph de Grazia, but possibly of his attachè, either a French or Italian intelligence officer working with the Americans. My father may be the one holding the camera, but it is certain the man standing before the pile of corpses is not him. However, I wrote this in explanation: "While studying at NYU, I used my father's office to rest in overnight so as to avoid the commute back to Princeton. The filing cabinets attracted my attention, though I knew nothing at the time of my father's visits to the concentration camps, or of the "Holocaust deniers" movement that is now a well-known and wide-spread political phenomenon, popular among Arab intellectuals, Jihadists, neo-Nazis and those Germans who would avoid the reparations payments demanded of them.

While going through a drawer picked at random, I read a letter from my father to my mother, and then moved on. A little ways away, I plucked a photograph of WWII vintage from the file. It was of my father standing in front of a pile starved bodies about seven feet high. The bodies were gruesome and stacked like cord wood. I later learned that this photo was taken in the Buchenwald Concentration (KZ) Camp, and that he and others belonging to General Patton's staff had been ordered in by the General to witness the atrocities.

My father also took my brother and myself on a tour of Africa and Europe that literally followed the route the American Army took in 1941 to 1944 to a large degree, though we diverged after Rome and headed for Istanbul. At no time in my entire contact with my father then, before, or after did he say he was a propagandist.

It seemed that he was a scout or spy of some sort, and I would later learn that his rank and title was that of Captain of Intelligence. This was borne out by what I discovered in Licodia Eubea, Sicily, where my grandfather Master Musician, Arranger and Conductor Alfred Joseph diGrazia hailed from. I found in a house my great-aunt owned books kept by her that had been sent my father during the war, and that included a technical work on camping, scouting and living like the Indians of North America. My great-aunt Immaculate Sister diGrazia of Licodia Eubea, a Dominican nun and school teacher, still had cans of condensed sweetened milk given the Sicilians by American troops during WWII and opened one for us. That was in 1967." - John Sebastian DeGrazia, son of Alfred Joseph de Grazia

As far as Alfred de Grazia's wartime record goes
I am sure a more complete summary could be made through reading his book concerning this wartime experiences, "A taste of War," however, I would like to mention that there exists film footage of him meeting with Generals Patton, Montgomery and Clark before the Battle of Casino. He was sent in a jeep in advance of the army at this battle, and though the Germans claimed and had made a promise not to fortify the Abbey of Monte Casino that crowns a steep, rocky and un-vegetated hill, German gun emplacements opened fire on him and his companion. The report of this to the generals fueled the decision to bomb the abbey, however the ruins presented equal or better cover for the defenders, and 500 Polish soldiers died in the ultimately successful attempt to take the hill, past which nothing could be moved while the German guns remained. The bombing of the Abbey had far-reaching effects in the ensuing war, as it was held out to the Italians as evidence that the Allies were prepared to demolish Rome, and even the treasures of the Vatican, if they didn't capitulate. The treasures of the Abbey at Monte Casino themselves, had mostly been carried off to safety in advance of the Allied invasion and bombing.Now, the war wasn't won at Monte Casino, by a long shot, and there followed the Winter War and then the removal of the Germans from Northern Italy, where they remained hidden in the mountains and in slave-labor carved caves along the Gothic Line after Italy surrendered. While that combined American-Italian Partisan campaign was being wound up, the 3rd Army was transported by ship from Leghorn (Livorno) to England. Luckily for him, Patton's division was placed opposite a point on the French coast miles north of where the actual D-Day landing took place. This drew off major parts of the German defensive forces, who rushed south too late to offer opposition to the D-Day invasion, or even drive back those soldiers who had survived the fierce resistance the Nazis had posed with any degree of success.Patton's tanks and troops were then landed and spearheaded a drive to the Rhine, but the Nazis brought up their Tiger tanks, child soldiers and old men in one last ditch effort to encircle and cut off major portions of the Allied armies with a drive to Belgium and the sea. This was called the Battle of the Bulge to reflect the bulge that was caused in the Allied lines by the efforts of the enemy. It was a time of great loss by virtue of the fact that a general retreat of the kind undertaken by the Americans leaves those nearest the enemy with their backs turned, unable to answer enemy fire, and soon to be overrun. It was during this battle that American soldiers were massacred, and the no-quarter, last-ditch fighting began in earnest; even to the end when captured German soldiers succumbed in captivity through lack of any hygenic precautions being taken, or rather the opposite. My father escaped with his life during WWII, but sadly left many friends in France for all time. He never could talk of it except with tears in his eyes. So, you see, the story of Alfred de Grazia from 1941 to 1945 is very close to the pith and substance of the entire military experience of the United States in Western Europe during WWII, and his close contact with the British thereafter lent that somewhat looney flavor to his persona noted in this biography. Remember, while probing the German positions at Monte Casino he was just a stone's throw from where Mad Jack and his commandos assaulted a German position, with Captain Jack carrying nothing more than a long-bow. He laisoned with General Montgomery's divisions, as well, and the stories of the Centurion tank losses were as close to his heart as American losses in the same fields. There may be other "Catch 22"-like stories, especially with respect to the trek across North Africa and the invasion of Sicily, that remain to be told, or that may reside in his literary works, while his wartime literary contributions (the letters, etc) also remain for the distant future and those who will one day teach a remote, but explosive and world-changing era to university students and scholars in search of a better understanding of the period.

There was only one Alfred de Grazia, and he was the one under attack by the Holocaust denier and apologist...
There was only one Alfred de Grazia, and he was the one under attack by the Holocaust denier and apologist, so I wrote this to him: Re: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/in-world-war-ii-were-there-2-americans-named-alfred-degrazia/#comment-46215 "The Alfred de Grazia that was purported to have done all the things attributed to him by you is the same as my father; however, I cannot say why he said any or all of these things, or what the Army actually used him for, or if and why he posted the picture as him when it wasn’t and isn’t. I replaced in the place I found it the actual picture of him posing in front of the stacked bodies at what I am sure was Buchenwald, and Anne-Marie von Hueber – de Grazia said that he had also been to Auschwitz. I did not know this until she made the statement on Facebook in connection with the photo. My father tended to self-aggrandizement and liked Jews who he thought were very smart. He also tended to be a Sophist, or sophistical. He could have written a lot with intent, or purposively. But still, why are you choosing this man, who did so much for humanity, as any sort of model for any sort of behavior that you might find unfavorable to your interests? The Nazis made their own bed and dragged the German people into it. The bombing of cities had already begun in WWI with German Zeppelins hitting London. The British chose to be the first to bomb German cities in WWII, but it would have started with German bombers in due time. I wandered the battlefields of Europe for years, just feeling the pain and division; even in my own mind and family, and grew up with young men and women who had lost their parents in the War, years before. Find someone else to pillory. Al de Grazia should be left in peace; he did his duty and it was rough from the start. He accomplished miracles considering all. Wikipedia is not good for you or your cause; it is filled with crap that anyone with a brain can see is made up to suit the authors’ purposes. I believe the term is “whole cloth,” right from the weaving mill and ready to be cut to suit the maker’s needs. If you are looking for allies in your future campaigns, you are going about it in entirely the wrong way."

There may have been more than one Alfred deGrazia active in the military during WWII
There may have been a second Alfred deGrazia with a parallel military record, now being confused with my father Alfred Joseph de Grazia. This Alfred deGrazia may have been associated with the so-called Ritchie boys whose job it was to disseminate propaganda of various sorts. I am sure my father was attached to the 3rd Army through the end of the war, and was one of those ordered into Buchenwald, not Auschwitz, at the end of the war when the territories surrounding those places were liberated by the American Army. There was a huge rush to move in before the Russians, and spare the Germans the decades of rape, robbery and iron rule that accompanied the Russian Occupation of Germany. The right wing is on the rise in Europe at the time this is being written as a result of the refugee crisis, and there will be great efforts made to discredit the Americans and all liberal influences in hopes of staunching the flow of refugees with definitive force. Again, the source of much of the rancor stems from the days of the Battle of the Bulge. It was then that the Americans were unable to fall back enough to avoid surrenders in some cases, and some of those who surrendered were massacred in an incident that is well-documented. This sort of thing did not happen in the Winter War before Rome, when there were also extensive American surrenders. Those who surrendered then spent the war in "Hogan's Heroes" POW camps. The result of the massacre referred to was reprisals, and the Americans began to open fire on child soldiers attempting to surrender. It might be mentioned that my father Alfred de Grazia was part of the heroic resistance that turned the tide at the Battle of the Bulge, and even once quoted Surrounded Commander Bethanne Kelly Patrick, who said "Nuts" when given the ultimatum to surrender. If he was actually inside Bastogne at the time of the encirclement, that would explain a lot, but even if he wasn't... https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/#sthash.3cLrpCsV.dpuf Try "In World War II, were there 2 Americans named Alfred DeGrazia?" in the search box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the picture of "Alfred de Grazia" standing before a pile of severed limbs at Auschwitz - the last gasp of John deGrazia, son of Alfred de Grazia
One last item; although, Alfred de Grazia's page seems to be beyond deletion, and the opinions of a close relative will tend to be biased on the favorable side, I would like to add one more note of "grand explanation," that may strike a favorable note and ring true with the intellectuals to whom this article may remain of interest long after those seeking "true glory" have long departed the page.

When the Americans found themselves in Italy in 1942, they found themselves in an unfamiliar and often very hostile environment. Physically, the south of Italy is a couple of barren mountain chains, with almost no coastal plain and very limited negotiable terrain. It is not tank country, by a long shot. Religiously and intellectually, Italy is Catholic, and the Catholic Church was supporting the Fascists (sorry, again; but, true).

Now, my father, the grandson of Joseph di Grazia, one of Garibaldi's 500, was also the nephew and son of beloved Sicilian Catholic school teachers, Alfred di Grazia and Immaculate Sister di Grazia, and thus was well situated to brave the storm of criticism that greeted the Americans that came from the Catholic Church and Italy's educated Catholic elite.

These, the rulers and thinkers of Fascist Italy "had reason," as the Duce, Benito Mussolini, had done much to "knock out" the Mafia, that super-corrupt organization that had taken over power from the Feudal overlords who were toppled in the 19nth Century, in Sicily and Southern Italy. Unfortunately, in their effort to prevent anarchy and Communism from becoming the postwar order of the day in Southern Italy, as well as to find allies against the Facsists during and after the War, the Americans restored this criminal element to power, to some degree. My father was also ready and able to participate in the leveling of force against "Priests carrying guns," the very thing his grandfather had been called on to do when Garibaldi took Rome (then the entire area of the ancient Roman province of Latium) and added it (less the Vatican) to the Italian state he created.

Okay, we're still not done. The Generals needed some sort of legitimacy; sure, the Bishop had given General Clark a precious jewel at Paestum, but they needed something more than baubles. My father, with his University of Chicago education, was able to connect them with and help explain Italy's remote and glorious past, and General Patton was pleased beyond belief. He came to think that he was Belisarius, sent to drive out the Ostrogoths, though the names wouldn't have rolled off his tongue. Allusions to the depredations the Vandals (Wends?), also found favorable audiences, though the vast majority of the Army was Protestant, and therefore might have identified with the Arian heresy that was the religion of that German tribe who had occupied the African province of Western Rome in the declining years of the Roman Empire. Perhaps, this is what is meant as psychological warfare; I don't know, really.

As stated at the outset, I'm trying to maintain a neutral POV, but doing so requires a distance that only time measured in decades or centuries will bring. As to my own defense contribution, I believe that you will find that I've been able to bring to the Americans and their allies vital information concerning futuristic weapons development, and this has been done at some considerable personal risk and cost. Should some sort of article on this matter appear in Wikipedia in the coming months or years; such as, concerning the development and use of this weapon, then it should link to Alfred de Grazia's page for background and "informational environment" reasons.

As to the use of the photo now circulating purported to be of him standing in front of a pile of severed limbs at a concentration camp; it is not the one I saw in his office at NYU, and I do not recognize the individual in the photograph. This picture is being used by Holocaust deniers and Arab sites, so it should be identified properly, and references to him deleted or separated from it, a difficult thing to do since it seems to have been labelled with his name. The picture I saw may yet appear on the web, as I didn't take any measures to hide or destroy it, despite its gruesome character, and may have even approved of its publication as a proof of the atrocities perpetrated in the Concentration Camps not knowing that Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic and anti-American Arabs would use it for their own purposes. I suspect it went with the rest of the material in his office to the Library of Congress archives where it now resides.

Photograph
An editor who claims to be the son of the article's subject want to remove the image of de Grazia at Dachau., as he insists it is not a picture of his father. However, the picture appears in de Grazia's self-published book, A Taste of War: Soldiering in Woprld War II. It can be seen here (you have to flip forward about 7/8ths of the way down the scroll bar to the photo before page 482), where the person in the image is identified as the subject of the article. It seems highly unlikely that de Grazia would include in his own book a picture of someone else and identify it as himself. For this reason I restored the photo. BMK (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that the photograph was uploaded to Commons by an editor claiming to be the subject of the article, the photogrpah and the book, Alfred de Grazia, and was cleared by Commons OTRS. See here. BMK (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is now the subject of a discussion on AN/I here. BMK (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted this link where possible; https://www.pinterest.com/pin/347340189988471388/ It is the only true image I can find of Alfred de Grazia at the age (within ten years) of the purported photo of him at Auschwitz. I know that he was at Buchenwald, and saw a picture of him there, but this is not it. The individual is not him. Please do not restore it, especially as it is being used by anti-Semites, Jew-haters, and Gypsy-haters that want to gloat and rejoice at the images of the murdered Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals at Buchenwald and Auswitz and who are including it in their sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * The blurb for his book explicitly states that he was at the liberation of Dachau. BMK (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, do you realize that the photograph was uploaded to Commons by User:Aldegraz, who claimed to be Alfred de Grazia, and that the photograph carries on it an "OTRS" case number, which means that editor Aldegraz must have presented to the OTRS team evidence which supported his identity and his right to upload the picture? The fact that it also appears in his self-published book is a clincher -- why do you not address that issue? BMK (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User:Beyond_My_Ken

I think I've addressed that in my request for mediation. My father wrote constantly and incessantly about almost anything. My late mother Jill Oppenheim - de Grazia kept his papers free of errors for as long as she could. There were hired secretaries, as well. He didn't falsify anything intentionally; it's probably just the case that one photo was on the top, and the other, the real picture of him standing in front of a stack of bodies at Buchenwald was submerged. So, whoever it was, and I'm sure it wasn't him in full consciousness of what he was doing, decided to use the one at hand to illustrate his book about WWII. That picture was probably of his partner and may have been taken by him. He did so many important things for the Government and the American Army, the substitution would have seemed trivial to him. However, in a court of law, that sort of thing can be very serious, and throw everything into doubt, the so-called "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" rule. Everything is presumed false upon discovery of a single falsification in any given legal proceeding, though in this case it wouldn't be where sworn oral testimony was concerned. You have the two pictures; the one on Pinterest is the correct person known as Alfred de Grazia; hero, teacher, author, etc. I don't know who the person is whose picture is posted on his page as being of him in the act of liberating Auschwitz. I imagine that it must be very confusing to his descendants and relatives, though, and I'm sure he has plenty of them. Again, I saw the Buchenwald picture, and that's not it. The person in it has no resemblance to my father; his nose is long, he sports a mustache or heavy growth of beard, and he is even thinner than my father was, though my father was very thin and slight of build. My father had a very light beard, as you can see from his picture taken at an advanced age, and was clean-shaven in the WWII pictures I saw him in. He also had a short nose and a pronounced, unmistakable long upper lip, along with a noticeable over-bite. Also; Buchenwald is remembered by the fact that the bodies were ordered stacked by the Americans. Auschwitz may be remembered by the fact that the Americans manned the bulldozers that buried victims of the camp. My father may have been at Auschwitz, but I know he was at Buchenwald by the picture showing him in front of the seven-foot high stack of starved bodies. — Preceding Jagtig (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You answer is almost entirely speculation on your part. I have provided nothing but facts, you have provided your feelins, your perceptions, and speculation. It is not enough.  As you were told on the AN/I thread, you need something from a reliable source that shows that the person is not Alfred de Grazia, because all the verifiable evidence we have shows that it is.  Just to repeat:
 * The photograph in question was uploaded by Commons user Commons:User:Aldegraz on 22 January 2010, with the notes:
 * Description=This picture shows me, Capt. Alfred de Grazia, in front of a pile of dead bodies at Dachau concentration camp in Bavaria Germany, two (maybe three) days after the liberation of the camp by the American army. I was then Commanding Officer of the Psychological Warfare Combat Propaganda Team attached to HQ, the Seventh Army.
 * Source=This picture of me was taken at Dachau concentration camp in Germany with my own camera by a fellow American soldier.
 * Author=This picture of me was taken with my own camera by a fellow American soldier.
 * The image carries OTRS ticket #2010010910012164. I presume that this means that the uploading editor presented prooof of his identity and authorship of the photo.
 * The image also appears in a self-published book by Alfred de Grazia, A Taste of War: Soldiering in World War II. It's available on Amazon.com, and using the "Look Inside" feature one can see the same photograph just prior to page 482 (scroll about 7/8ths down the scroll bar). The caption reads "The author at Dachau".
 * The picture also appears online on a site called kalos.com, in an essay called "The Life of Alfred de Grazia" supposedly written by Anne-Marie (Ami) de Grazia. (Just shy of 1/2 way down the page). This is the name of the woman Alfred de Grazia was married to at the time of his death, according to our article, which was heavily contributed to by you.
 * You need to provide factual evidence for your claims, not speculation, not your own conclusions (which are original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia), and not your feelings and emotions. Please concentrate on factual matter from reliable third parties in your future responses. BMK (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your father's book is quite clear that he was at Dachau. Have you read it? BMK (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard everything at the dinner table; I had stomach ulcers three times listening to the terrible stories that he carried in his head for his entire life. He drank a little, but remained lucid, highly educated and very intelligent almost to the end. Now, let's keep to this single picture, which could be replaced with the real thing, should someone do a little legwork and go to the archives of the Library of Congress, and look up Alfred de Grazia's papers. There, they will probably find at least one more photo of him (actually him) standing in front of a seven-foot tall pile of corpses at Buchenwald. I say this because I read somewhere that the Americans forced the German citizens of a neighboring town to pile the corpses in this fashion, and this wasn't done elsewhere. At Auschwitz the corpses were bull-dozed by American servicemen into pits, and buried. my father wasn't the only one to witness the holocaust, and it doesn't make sense that he should be remembered for this terrible thing that the enemy did during the time he was in the military if he is actually being written up as an intellectual who did pioneering computer work, as well as intellectual work in connection with Velikovsky's theories. He also worked for the FBI in anti-corruption cases, but nowhere is that mentioned. I was an adult and literally by his side when he helped out in the Rastenkowski case; you may remember that [] was a powerful Chicago politician accused and convicted of employing persons with the intent of rewarding them for various reasons. My father's career at NYU and other colleges teaching also is not mentioned. He had thousands of devoted students over the years, and led the way in educating foreign students where American government was concerned. Now, NYU is the first American University to build a major branch in an Arab country. I have brothers and sisters, and all of us have memories that may be brought low by showing this picture around the world where it may easily be used by anti-Semites, Satanists, and who-knows-who-else as a point of rejoicing and wickedness. It may belong on a Holocaust page, but not on my father's notables page. As to the picture's provenance, I suspect that it was uploaded in error by either his wife or a secretary. Anne-Marie von Hueber - de Grazia is thirty or fifty years his junior, and wouldn't know what he looked like when he was young, and this would explain the error. My father never even learned to type; all of his writings are written out in a very elegant long-hand. I don't believe he personally uploaded one picture to Wikipedia, or anywhere else. Here is what he approximately looked like within ten years of when the picture was taken. He never had a beard or mustache until he was about sixty-five years old, and then it was sparse; very sparse. He wasn't wasp-waisted, and not as thin. I saw the picture taken of him at Buchenwald, and he was smiling, clean shaven, and looked about half the age of the man pictured. There is no comparison. Ultimately, I may actually go to Washinton, and make a copy of the right picture, and that may be posted, or not, but the one being used should be removed without my having to trouble my sisters and Anne-Marie, as they are no more comfortable with Wikipedia technology than my father was; I'm pretty sure of that. Jagtig (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry to be harsh about this, but all anyone's asking is that you provide some hard evidence from a reliable source (please read the policy page in that link) to back up your claim, because all the available evidence we have does not support your contention that the man in the photograph is not your father. All you provide is your feelings and memories and your speculation, and that is just not enough. BMK (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have asked that the photograph you posted here be deleted from Commons, as it does not appear to me that you own the copyright to it. As you well know, it is cropped from a photograph that appears on the back cover of your father's self-published book Cosmic Heretics, and is therefore covered by the copyright on that book.  If you have in some wayreceived the ownership of the photograph -- by which I mean the ownership of the copyright to it, not merely a copy of the photo, you need to show proof of your identity and your ownership to the OTRS team on Commons.  Go to Commons:OTRS and follow the instructions there. In the mentime, until your right to upload it has been established, I have removed it from the article.  If you manage to establish you bona fides, then you can restore it. BMK (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the back cover of the book says that the photo dates from 1964, not c.1951. BMK (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, using the "Look inside" feature on Amazon, the book is clearly labelled as "Copyright Alfred de Grazia 1984, 2012". BMK (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The picture was taken with some others, including one of me as an infant, at Stanford around 1951. He was about 32 years old. In 1964 he was about 45, and overweight and balding. He had very thin hair when he did have hair.

I would use this template for a quick restore:

I have tried the Library of Congress for the correct photo of him at Buchenwald. Unfortunately, something has made him smile rather broadly as the picture is being taken, and that's probably why it wasn't seen as fit for publication.

Your question: 	To General Inquiries (Library of Congress): My father was a significant figure in the European Theater of War during WWII. He has been written up in Wikipedia, but a picture of his assistant was somehow uploaded, and labelled as him. I have seen a picture of him under the same circumstances, witnessing the carnage at Buchenwald and Auschwitz, and I am under the impression it was archived in the Library of Congress along with the letters to his wife (2000 letters) and other historical, or source, material from WWII. How can I try and trace this photo so that it might be submitted to replace the one uploaded erroneously? This, of course, is a significant historical detail that shouldn't be overlooked. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Grazia You will receive acknowledgement of question receipt and an answer to your question at the e-mail address you provided. Your question will be assigned to a reference specialist and you should receive a response within five business days.
 * The image you uploaded here is clearly a copy of the back cover image here. Look at the planking and the three trees just behind your father's head!!  Look at the white shoulder of the man next to him.  This is not whatever picture you're describing, it's a crop of a picture on the back cover of a copyrighted book.  Perhaps you cropped it from your own copy, I don't know, but there canbe no doubt that it's the same picture, that the book is copyrighted, therefore the picture is copyrighted, therefore only the copyright holder can upload it to Commons. BMK (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand - are you admitting now that you don't own the right to upload the picture on Commons, so you're uploading it here as non-free? BMK (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Non-free use template; but I haven't found out how to use it, yet. The picture that I want removed is gruesome; appealing to sick types, whether ant-Semites, Satanists or sadists. I've said this before. Still, there's no apparent concern for my father's family shown, and the wholesome picture I offer to be posted alongside it, and which is beyond doubt genuine, yet not all similar to the one of the individual posted in front of the holocaust victims, is being rejected. 108.24.111.82 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jagtig, you habve just made a threat of legal action, which is within your rights to do, however you cannot continue to edit Wikipedia while you are threatening to take legal action against it. Please read this policy page WP:NLT and read it carefully.  I suggest that you withdraw the threat of legal action, if you wish to continue editing here. BMK (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, withdrawn; and, I have uploaded a picture of my father that may pass Non-free use definitions and rationales. thumb|Alfred de Grazia Try to put yourself in my shoes. This is the day of the internet. What if someone smeared your father all over the world? Or, your grandfather, or great-grandfather? Do you get pleasure in doing that to others, and seeing how they will respond; like mice given electro-shocks? The holocaust picture is a mistake, and is also an offense to the relatives of the person depicted, whoever they are. The individual shown might be still alive, who knows? Jagtig (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this has gone on long enough. The photo you disapprove of was described by your father in his book as a picture of himself, and was verified by our OTRS system.  We are not going to remove it based on assumptions and speculation.
 * The photo that you uploaded to Commons is not being considered for deletion because we don't like wholesome pictures, it is because you are not accurately describing where it came from. It is clearly a cropped picture of Alfred de Grazia and Velikovsky taken in 1964.
 * Finally, BMK has bent over backwards to treat you with respect, and it is shameful to completely ignore his many questions, and now start claiming he is getting some kind of pleasure "smearing" anyone.
 * If you continue along this vein (repeatedly saying easily disproved things, threatening legal action, and insulting other editors) I will block you (and your IP address) from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In trying to cut the Gordian knot here, I have recropped the "back cover" picture to include both de Grazia and Velikovsky, and uploaded to en.wiki under what I think it a legitimate and appropriate NFCC license. It now appears in the article, and can be found at File:Velikovsky and de Grazia.jpg. BMK (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

````That's easy for you to say; you have no understanding of the work my father did, and how we were targeted repeatedly by those he offended. He was active in the de-Nazification program, as stated, and his experiences there led him into advising the Government on how to go after the Mafia, especially where government infiltration is concerned (the classic example used is the takeover of Cicero by Al Capone, but it happens everywhere). I have brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces and great-nephews, as well as cousins who have always been fearful. People like you "take over" intellectual property, with no concern for those who may have to live with the consequences. I write freely because the Mafia and corrupt politicians are highly unlikely to read Wikipedia talk pages, but by posting a tasteless picture which somehow got into one my father's publications (he has hundreds of them and couldn't know what was going on in his last years), you can only do yourself harm, and expose the entire Wikipedia to doubts. You're "in love" with a disgusting image for whatever reasons, and if you look closely it differs from the real picture of him at Buchenwald because the uniform lacks his captain's stripes. Why don't you Google images to see where the picture is being used. It's cropping up on hate and sick sites all over the world. Grow up! When I get money, I'll look for the real picture in the Library of Congress, with the intent of proving your version false. I won't be any happier seeing it posted, though, and will try to prevent that.108.24.111.82 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we're done. I'm trying my best to help you, and you're being totally unreasonable about the whole thing. Dead end, full stop. BMK (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I restated my case with complaints; the original complaint had the wrong page address; it had the article instead of the talk page. I think they will see what I am saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Alfred_de_Grazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found four more indesputable pictures of my father Alfred Joseph de Grazia on the internet. They are:


 * Now, anybody can see the individual in the photo depicting the unfortunate victims at Auschwitz is not my father; however, I did see a picture of him standing in front of bodies at Buchenwald. The picture should be removed.Jagtig (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, once again, and as usual, your conclusions do not follow from your "evidence", which is, in fact, mot evidence at all. That they are pictures of de Gfrazia I will take for granted, but they do not in anyway "prove" that the person in the photo you want removed is not him as well -- it does in your mind according to your personal interpretation of them, but that's not "evidence", it's WP:original research, which we do not accept,  You've been told any number of times now that you need to have a  citation from a WP:reliable source , such as a scholar or subject expert and not to continue to press your case on the basis of your own feelings and analysis.  Please, finally, at long last, to listen to that advice and stop this nonsense. BMK (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's really no way, with the quality of the photograph being what it is that a statement can be made that this is definitively not the person in the other images. BMK (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, keep these photos here so that people who may be offended by the material know that I tried my best to have it removed, thank you.
 * And, you should take a look at this page: https://www.pinterest.com/prinoer/family-or-the-people-telling-me-what-to-do-whether/ It will give you an idea of what it's like to grow up in a family of notable people. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You should have some respect; not for me, but for the circumstances, the people affected, the families, etc. 15:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs)
 * You are strongly keep hold of three incorrect ideas. One is that it is not your father in the disputed picture, despite the fact the he said it was when it uploaded it here, and when he included it in his book.  Who do you think is better aware of whether it is he or not, you, or your father?  Your convoluted speculations about secretaries and mistakes made are countered by the statement directly made by your father in the images upload, and whatever proof he offered to Commons OTRS to show his ownership of the image.  Against that, you provide nothing but emotions and speculation.Your second unwarranted notion is that I wish the image to be disoplayed out of some interest in harming you or your family, or from anti-semetisim (??) or some other devious motivation.  This is totally untrue, and I appeal to you to stop making these claims, which are hurtful and unnecessary, as well as being wrong.Your third incorrect idea is that Wikipedia exists for the aggrandizement of your family.  That is not the case.  Your father's article was kept at two AfDs primarily because of his espousal of fringe pseudoscientific ideas, not because of his war record or the medals he received.  Thousands of other men have similar records and do not have Wikipedia articles.  It is your father's post-war record that earns him the notability to have an article, which exists to present facts and neither to pump up nor denigrate you or your family.  Your experiences are irrelevant to the article, and more than irrelevant to this discussion, which has gone on much too long and has moved into the arena of tendentious and disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You expect me to be intimidated by your wordiness, I know; but you can see that my entire family is quite capable of seeing, saying and believing the truth of the matter: https://www.pinterest.com/prinoer/family-or-the-people-telling-me-what-to-do-whether/ He is not the only one of my relatives featured as a "notable" in Wikipedia; there are several so written up. My father and I were never close (stated previously on this page), so that throws your "pride" argument out the window. And as well, no other encyclopedic biography of my father includes the disgusting picture that he appears to have included in his own writings of his war-time experiences for whatever reasons. You will see upon visiting the family page I am creating in Pinterest that your problems will probably continue, with criticism of the choice of images coming from other quarters, as well; persons much more highly respected where intellectual matters are concerned. The material at issue is inappropriate, inciteful and offensive to Jews, Gypsies and others who can imagine the corpses of their loved ones in the terrible heap at the feet of the person pictured. Furthermore, the picture is a denigration of human dignity, whatever the religion or race of the victims and the intent of its makers. All that we can be sure is that the dead pictured were not criminals, or in any way deserved their fate. The picture should only be shown where it can be extensively explained by anti-inflammatory writings laying the blame where it should be laid, not simply distributed on the web for the use of any sick-minded individual or group. Please do not remove this statement. I must separate myself as far as possible from the erroneous choice that you and the other presiding Wikipedia editors have made. I live in a liberal, sensitive and highly intelligent environment; namely, Princeton near Princeton University, and have all my life, and this matter has already gotten around. https://www.pinterest.com/prinoer/Alfred-de-Grazia/ http://www.kalos.co/alfred-de-grazia.html Jagtig (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI. On Commons, I have nominated the four pictures above for deletion and reported them for probable copyright violations, since you give the author as "Alfred DeGrazia" (who you are not), and the source as "Kalos Magazine", which I believe is in some way connected with de Grazia, but the copyright for which I very much doubt that you own. As you should be aware, as other images you uploaded to Commons were deleted for this very reason, you are not allowed to upload copyrighted images to Commons unless they are properly licensed, or unless you can show to the Commons OTRS team (as your father did when he uploaded the disputed image) that you own the rights to the image. Please don't do this again. BMK (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)