Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas/Archive 4

Geislingen is a disambig
Which Geislingen? Both of them are rather small and the articles are stubs. Why is the prize so important if the towns aren't?Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Geislingen an der Steige. The prize is significant enough, and also because of the presence of the Minister of Culture and the Governor of the Province of Baden-Württemberg.85.0.19.214 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to prove Baden-Württemberg be important for English Wikipedia readers.Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Once more - which Geislingen? There are two of them.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Prizes
Google doesn't confirm the name"Danube Swabian Society of the United States and Canada".Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Generally - which prizes should be mentioned in this Wikipedia? The names are either original German or translated or mixed English-German. Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) The Danube Suevian Foundation of the USA INC is a charitable association incorporated in the State of Wisconsin and has its current headquarters in Cincinnati. The Canadian branch office is in Kitchener. http://www.dsfoundationusa.org/links.html 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The two (plumb forgotten?) labels: "neutrality" and "independent sources"
I agree with the IPs 193.239.220.249, Raymond Lohne, Ph.D., Columbia College Chicago 67.184.223.103 and 85.0.19.214. There is no justification either for POV or neutrality label here. Indeed, this is one of the better biographies in the Wiki and provides solid independent sources. So, I think that after more than two months without any serious discussion (!) on the matter, the labels can be removed. - From my side: EOD about this nearly endless matter. --El Toro Gordito (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) - I`ve removed them now (...after the lost two months without any serious discusson about that matter). --El Toro Gordito (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * agree with Gordito. Maybe more should be written on de Zayas' human rights work, especially his pioneering work on a new human right to peace.121.217.4.162 (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

UN Human Rights Committee
The Oxford University publication "Refugee Survey Quarterly" brings a very favourable review of de Zayas' new book on the case law of the Human Rights Committee in its Summer 2010 issue. As the reviewer notes, the book is the most up to date analysis of the Committee's jurisprudence. De Zayas was the chief lawyer for the Human Rights Committee 1981-2003. 139.130.4.94 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is opposing the Iraq War and the Guantanamo Concentration Camp "controversial"?
The lead claims that "While de Zayas' literary output and his international law and human rights publications are mainstream, his peace activism has rendered him somewhat controversial [23]. Since his retirement from the UN in 2003, de Zayas has become a vocal critic of the Iraq war [24], indefinite detention [25] in Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons, nuclear pollution, and extreme poverty".

Mrandsl (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mrandsl. Some of your additions and deletions are quite sensible -- others less so. Opposing the Vietnam War, the Iraq war, indefinite detention, Guantanamo etc. has brought de Zayas, Ramsey Clark, Noam Chomsky, Jean Ziegler etc. enough "controversy" in the form of being accused of being "unpatriotic" or even sympathizing with terrorists. Ridiculous, you may think, but that's the way the political game is played. Some trolls in the German Wikipedia engaged in an edit war full of invective and calumny. It is best to steer clear of that in the American Wiki. What is refreshing about de Zayas is that he criticises human rights violations no matter where they occur -- and who the victims happen to be. When he was young he wrote about the German expellees, a totally ignored category of victims. He has since moved to defending the rights of other "unsung victims" including the indigenous of America and Canada, the Armenians, the Cypriots. You deleted reference to de Zayas' seminal article "Guantanamo Naval Base" in the online Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law -- I think this article is of great importance. See http://www.mpepil.com/subscriber_article?script=yes&id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e301&recno=2&author=de%20Zayas%20%20Alfred. I have also added de Zayas' new book on the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee, written together with the Icelandic Judge Jakob Th. Möller, N.P.Engel Verlag, Kehl am Rhein, ISBN 978-3-88357-144-7. Regards --Contributions/193.239.220.249 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was rather that the allegedly controversial positions mentioned, at least in Europe are mainstream positions, held by perhaps 90 % of the population at least in Western Europe nowadays. If it's controversial in the United States, it's better to write exactly that - a European reader will not quite understand how opposition to the Iraq War, Guantanamo or extreme poverty could possibly be very controversial. As for the other edits, I see no need to remove the fact that he is the great-grandson of Alfredo Zayas y Alfonso, such is standard information included in articles. On the other hand, the sentence "He has chastised the United States, Great Britain, and Germany for their lack of intellectual honesty and their lip service to human rights" does not contain very much information, and should be ommitted in the introduction. It's better to explain in more detail about his criticism below. My only intention is to improve this article, I have a great deal of respect for De Zayas and his work. The "Guantanamo Naval Base" article deletion was a mistake, the version before my edits was a bit messy with references included in the lead text (i.e. without ref tags). Mrandsl (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mrandsl. I tend to agree with 193.239.220.249. Whereas the condemnation of the Irak war and Guantanamo may now be considered mainstream in Europe, this was not the case in 2002-03. De Zayas was perhaps the first prominent Professor to condemn both on German television in Monitor, 3Stat, Phoenix in March 2003 and in his lectures at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. If you read the U.B.C. Law Review 2004 you will find the November 2003 Douglas McKay Brown Lecture in which de Zayas called for the closing of Guantanamo. He was way ahead of his time -- but this also brought him congtroversial status. I have deleted your additions in the biography section because they are of little relevance to a serious encyclopedia article and smacks of vanity-fair or sensationalism. It is irrelevant in an article on a professor of international law who his great grandfather was or was not. The source that you cite seems to come from the German Wiki, and that is a somewhat problematic source, if you look at the vandalism prevalent there. The German Wiki gives a Cuban-American cite -- I would not put too much weight on that. Let's try to focus this article on the work of de Zayas, not on whether his great grandfather was president or delivery man. What's important is what he has written and done in the field of human rights. See for instance the review in the UN Special of June 2009 on his new book. http://www.unspecial.org/UNS685/t45.html Immerhinque (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Living in Europe, I remember well that opposition to the Iraq War was not particularly controversial in Europe in 2002-2003 either (at least not in France, Germany, Italy...). Guantanamo has always been met with disapproval in Europe, so I still feel simply "somewhat controversial" would be lead people to believe his positions are more controversial than they actually are (such wording is used for people who are a lot more controversial). I hope "rendered him somewhat controversial in the United States" is an ok compromise. As for the ancestry, I maintain that it is usual practice both at this project and other biographic encyclopedias to include such biographic information if it's notable. If he's a descendant of a President of Cuba, it's relevant. More sources on this would be a good thing, though. Mrandsl (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Immerhinque. Many who opposed the Irak war from the start were considered "unpatriotic" -- most went along with the policies of GWB until it became evident that it had been a colossal fraud. De Zayas' has an important article in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law in which he shows that the U.S. occupation of Guantanamo since 1898 and the "leases" imposed by force in 1903 and 1934 are incompatible with international law. No one before had formulated it as resolutely and as scholarly as de Zayas.193.239.220.248 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, while it may be true that most in the United States went along with the policies of George W. Bush, this has certainly never been the case in Europe. George W. Bush has been considered a ridiculous and extremist political figure by, I'd say the majority, of Europeans. Supporting Bush on the contrary has been considered somewhat far-out/extremist in large parts of the populations of Europe. Among people I know, mostly well-educated people, supporting Bush would be severely frowned upon, something unworthy a person with a minimum of education. Mrandsl (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Immerhinque. The Wikipedia is not in the genealogy business. I could not care less who the great grandfather of de Zayas was. I am interested in his books. And his new book on the human rights committee is ground breaking. The former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights B. Ramcharan says this in his review: "It is staggering how much the Human Rights Committee has influenced the human rights jurisprudence of the world as is striking from reading this exceedingly important book." It should be remembered that de Zayas was the chief lawyer in the UN Secretariat servicing the Committee and that the function of the Secretariat was to draft the Committee's decisions. His impact on human rights law has thus been considerable. 72.161.160.248 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Wikipedia is in the biography business, and biographies in Wikipedia, at least in the English Wikipedia, include notable relatives. If the person is really important, even unnotable relatives may be included (Family of Barack Obama). For people not quite as famous as Obama, the standard rule is that close relatives who themselves have a Wikipedia biography may and should be mentioned, a direct ancestor who lived less than hundred years ago is always a close relative in this respect. The more important the relative is, the stronger the argument for mentioning him or her will be. Alfredo Zayas y Alfonso was a distinguished Cuban lawyer and politician, who served as the Cuban president, and has biographies in several languages. As such, it follows by convention at this project that he should be mentioned in the background section. Even if you don't care about it, other people (like me) do. We are not only writing a bibliography, or about his books, we are writing a biography. Information about his background from Cuba is useful and interesting. If you check other biographies on Americans, you will also notice that many of them, perhaps even most of them, include information about the family heritage (Hillary_Rodham_Clinton).


 * There is no need to tell me that Alfred de Zayas' impact on human rights law has been considerable, that is my opinion as well.


 * Generally, it seems to me that Immerhinque, who appears to be German, judging by his/her contributions at the German project before he/she was banned at that project, is trying to apply German Wikipedia rules in this case. The English Wikipedia has totally different conventions when it comes to dealing with relatives and private background in general of article subjects. The Germans are more restrictive/private, the English Wikipedia has liberal policies and conventions in this respect. Mrandsl (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mrandsl. Dear Administrators. De Zayas is neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton. He is not a politician nor a movie actor. He is a professor of international law. This is not a vanity fair article, nor is it a full-fledged bibliography. It is an encyclopedia entry that should tell the reader who the guy is and where one can find out more information about him. You cannot possibly put all the information about every individual whose name appears in the Wikipedia. If you go on the de Zayas website http://alfreddezayas.com/ you will see that he also scuba dives, windsurfs and cycles. Should this be in the wiki? Obviously not. I have gone through the website rather thoroughly and found pictures of his parents, but no mention of his grandparents or even greatgrandparents.  In my opinion this article is already much too long. Let's keep it to the essentials. User 72.161.160.248 makes good points and has a good sense of proportions. Immerhinque (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I advise you to make yourself familiar with the practices at this project. I do not intend to engage in further discussion of this fruitless topic with you. Also, the article is, by Wikipedia standards, not too long, but could certainly be expanded upon (Wiki is not paper), a featured article (that is, an ideal article) would be much longer and more detailed. Mrandsl (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just visited his home page and noticed that he uses the Zayas family coat of arms as background. Mrandsl (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is really stupid to quarrel over this detail when we all hold Alfred de Zayas in high regard (as opposed to some German leftist contributors), but it seems to me that neither of you are particularly familiar with Wikipedia. The Zayas family, which is an old noble Castilian family with several distinguished members, may be worth its own article in my opinion. Mrandsl (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mrandsl. Dear Administrators. Several (at least 3) other Wiki users have expressed the view that an encyclopedia article cannot be the recipient of all the information that potentially could be inputted. A judicious choice must be made of the importance and relevance of a particular item of information. If you go on the Zayas website you will find 100 times more stuff than in the Wiki entry, but for very good reasons all of that information does not get picked up by Wiki. You seem to like genealogy. But your proposed addition (which has been removed by 3 other readers) adds nothing of importance to the article, and it may even have an unintended skewing effect. If you keep poking on "wealth", "aristocratic family", great-grandfather president -- you are sending a message that perhaps the books and articles of Zayas should be read from this perspective, because Zayas could never be an independent scholar and would have to serve the interests of wealth and aristocracy. Silly enough -- but you can be sure that a certain percentage of Wiki readers would draw the wrong conclusions from this kind of information. You mention one famous ancestor -- maybe he also had poor ancestors, maybe a grandfather was a cook, maybe a grandmother was a cleaning lady. We don't know this and we do not need to know it. By the way, your English is also a bit awkward -- every time you input your text, you do it grammatically wrong.  You write: "De Zayas belong to an aristocratic family of Spanish and French descent, that used to own large sugar plantations in Cuba, and is the great-grandson of Alfredo Zayas y Alfonso..."  What you mean is "De Zayas belongs ..."  And does he "belong" to a family, or is he the scion or descendant of such a family?  I have just gone on the German Wiki and seen that this silly information of his alleged great-grandfather is there too. I went on the Wiki article on Alfredo Zayas and confirmed that he was indeed an erudite civilian president and the author of many books. I went back into the history of the addition of this particular piece of information -- and discovered that it was added by -- surprise surprise -- two contributors who are always adding negative and frequently defamatory stuff about de Zayas -- KarlV and Giro. Cui bono? It seems quite obvious that the unnecessary addition in the German Wiki article should be removed as vanity-fair, Bradpittism, tendentious sensationalism intended to weaken the seriousness of the de Zayas oeuvre. I think you should now drop it and if you want to add information about his books and whether they have had an impact, this would be welcome indeed. Immerhinque (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the information will stay in, as it's sourced and in accordance with English Wikipedia practice. I reiterate my advice that you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia. I can't possibly see why it should be defamatory to mention that he is a member of a prominent family of lawyers, politicians, poets, revolutionary heroes, diplomats, doctors which has played an interesting role in Cuban history. Neither does the fact that KarlV and Giro supplied this information in the German Wikipedia article automatically make it incorrect. Your comparison with cooks or cleaning ladies is irrelevant – an encyclopedia usually only mentions relations with notable (a very important keyword) people. This is not an article solely about his books, this is a biography. PS: One does normally not start with "Dear Administrators" (especially when no administrators are taking part in the discussion, and even if they did, they would do so as contributors and not administrators). Mrandsl (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mradsl. Several Wiki-users have already expressed their view that de Zayas' great-grandfather has nothing to do with this article. De Zayas deserves an article in the Wiki because he is a distinguished professor of law, because he is also a careful, methodical historian and was the first American to write on the expulsion of the Germans after WWII -- a topic that had been totally taboo before the publication of "Nemesis at Potsdam". The article should focus on his human rights record, 25 years with the United Nations, his publications on minorities, refugees, victims of indefinite detention. Mention should be made of his new book on the case law of the Human Rights Committee. De Zayas has earned the respect of many people because he has documented human rights violations in a scholarly, compassionate manner without polemic. He does not blow his own horn. And his "aristocratic" roots are of little relevance here. 72.161.160.248 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is becoming tiresome and now you are soapboxing again, so I can understand why you were banned at the German edition. Mrandsl (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Patience is often required to resolve differences, and ad hominem comments should be used carefully. Zayas is an important figure. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

I should add that the Expulsion was not taboo in Germany, but received much attention, also from the government, in the 1950s and 1960s (there was a separate federal ministry responsible for the victims, and several educational programmes on the Expulsion existed in the 1950s, also, the Expulsion was dealt with in films and books at the time). "1968" changed this to some degree. De Zayas deserves much credit for making new generations aware of this topic and bringing it to the attention of an international audience/academic community. Mrandsl (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mrandsl. This is indeed becoming tiresome. There are three other Wiki users who consider that you are being unreasonable by insisting in including trivial, vanity-fair type information that is poorly sourced and of very little relevance. Please accept majority rule and do not put in this "aristorcratic" story about his alleged great-grandfather. That actually demeans the article -- it may belong in a book biography, but not in a Wiki entry. What you write about the Expulsion as not being taboo in Germany is wrong. What is your source for such a statement that can be so easily refuted? In the preface of "Anmerkungen zur Vertreibung" the former German Minister Windelen complained about the taboo of the 50s, 60s and 70s and identified de Zayas as the taboo-breaker. As you can easily confirm, the "Dokumentation der Vertreibung" was only done thanks to the perseverance and insistence of Professor Hans Rothfels and then it was printed in some 400 copies that went to specialized libraries and kept pretty much out of sight. The press and the media ignored the topic, and it was never taught in high schools and colleges. Countless books by people who lived these years complain that the subject matter was not only neglected in the schools -- it simply did not exist. As far as the United States is concerned, if your read the preface of "Die Nemesis von Potsdam", you will see that de Zayas had no clue about the Expulsion when he studied history at Harvard, and that it was only at the law school that he learned in an international law seminar that there had been such an expulsion, his Professor Richard Baxter regretted that there was nothing written on it in English. That is why de Zayas sought and obtained a Fulbright Fellowship to research the matter and publish "Nemesis at Potsdam" (Routledge) and A Terrible Revenge (Macmillan). As you can see from the awards that have been conferred on de Zayas, the victims of the expulsion recognized that he, a non-German, gave them a voice, while the German historians had ignored them. De Zayas was not only a taboo-breaker in the U.S., but very much so in Germany, where a reviewer referred to him as a "weisse Rabe" (I guess you know German). However, his "Anglo-Amerikaner und die Vertreibung der Deutschen" did get amazingly positive reviews in the press - in Die Zeit, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - but, as Manfred Kittel explains in "Die Vertreibung der Vertriebenen" (Oldenbourg 2007), there quite a certain reluctance in German academia to accept that an American suddenly came and broke their discrete silence on the subject. Then some German historians scrambled to write about the expulsion -- but only in the politically correct and historically incorrect manner -- by neatly dividing the dramatis personae -- the Germans as "perpetrators" and the Poles and Czechs as "victims", and explaining away the whole phenomenon with the monocausality of Hitler.  De Zayas deserves credit for his intellectual honesty in saying it as it was.  The Times educational supplement described "Nemesis" as "a lucid, scholarly and compassionate study".  See these and other reviews in http://www.alfreddezayas.com/books.shtml

What is a genuine shame is that German historians -- with a few exceptions like Professors Manfred Kittel and Matthias Stickler (review of a new edition of Nemesis in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 31 July 2006) -- have politically manipulated the subject matter to the detriment of the innocent victims. Perhaps the best recognition of the suffering of the German expellees was given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ayala Lasso when he told the Vertriebene assembled at the Paulskirche in Frankfurt on 28. Mai 1995: "I submit that if in the years following the Second World War the States had reflected more on the implications of the enforced flight and the expulsion of the Germans, today's demographic catastrophies, particularly those referred to as 'ethnic cleansing', would, perhaps, not have occurred to the same extent." Terentius9 (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This subject is far from being exhausted. If we were to elaborate on each war crime committed by the Russians, Poles, Czechs and others against the Germans during combat in and the Expulsion from the East, we would be busy for months! And now we have the spectacle of poor Erika Steinbach being harassed, libeled and pilloried and the sovereign country of Germany being harangued for daring to entertain an internal question of who should be on the board of the Center Against Expulsion. The Poles know full well that the Center was the idea and creation of Ms. Steinbach and that she has the complete support of the German expellees themselves. If the German government had raised a ruckus, as it should have, over the deflamatory and liablous statements from the Kaczynski twins there would have been a steady stream of accusations of meddling in internal affairs from Warsaw. But, of course, the playing field for negotiations between Poland and Germany can never be even.

Best regards to everyone!


 * I agree too. But de Zayas has not limited his focus to German issues, just go on his webpage and you will see his human rights activism on behalf of minorities, indigenous, the Tasmanians, Armenians, Cypriots,Guantanamo inmates, Palestinians, etc. His new publication with the Icelandic Judge Jakob Th. Moeler is monumental -- the Case Law of the UN Human Rights Committee 1977-2008, N.P.Engel Publishers, 2009, ISBN 978 3 88357 144 7. -the preface was written by the first chairman of the Committee, Professor Andreas Mavrommatis 89.55.153.181 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bertrand Ramcharan, the former Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights reviewed the book in the UN Special of June 2009, pp. 18-19: "It is staggering how much the Human Rights Committee has influenced the human rights jurisprudence of the world, as is striking from reading this exceedingly important book.... From the outset of its work in 1977 there have been two Secretariat pioneers in developing the case law of the Committe when it considers petitions from individuals claiming violations of their rights: Jakob Möller (Iceland) and Alfred de Zayas (USA). Möller was the first Chief of the Petitions branch of what is today the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and de Zayas was his colleague, who eventually suceeded him as Chief. ...Every lawyer, every judge, every public-spirited citizen will want to consult this fascinating book, because it tells us what is legally right and legally wrong, how to judge our governments, our societies, our United Nations and ourselves." 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Vererte Administratoren ich bin ein Amerikaner der ab und zu die Wikipedia liest die amerikanische scheint mir wissenschaftlicher und zuverlässiger zu sein. Bitte den Artikel "Alfred de Zayas" und die Diskussion entsperren. Es scheint, dass Administratoren wie Bunnyfrosch, Kombrig und PPD den Wolf als Gärtner spielen. Anstatt die falsche Informationen im Artikel zu korrigieren, löschen sie die begründeten Korrekturen und sogar die Diskussionsbeiträge. Der Artikel macht eine Karikatur des Prof. de Zayas und beinhaltet sachlich falsche Informationen und diffamatorische Urteile. Sie verharren auf eine Fussnote des DDR-Staatsanwalts Wieland gegen eine aus dem Zusammen gerissenen Satz in einem Buch von de Zayas. Dieses Buch ist ein Standardwerk in Amerika. Es wurde von grossen Experten in der American Journal, Cambridge Law Journal, Times glänzend rezensiert. Nun soll das Buch und der Autor durch eine Fussnote !!! in einem Artikel abqualifiziert werden. Absurd. Dies ist aber symptomatisch der Manipulation des Artikels durch Bunnyfrosch, KarlV, Giro und die übrige Kabal von Polemikern. Das Buch Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle wurde 1983 vom WDR verfilmt und in zwei Prime-time Sendungen in der ARD ausgestrahlt. Diese pertinente Information fehlt. Auch die vielen mesnchenrechtlichen Bücher von de Zayas z.B. im N.P.Engel und Brill Verlagen fehlen. Bitte mit dem Zayas Artikel in der amerikanischen bzw. französischen Wiki vergleichen.67.161.20.216 (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)\\


 * I guess the above entry was meant for the vandalized article in the German Wiki. I just looked at the German article, which is in pretty bad shape // and recently "protected" against corrections(!!). The German version allows all sorts of wrong and skewed information to stay, notwithstanding the clear refutation by responsible Wiki-readers, who give precise sources.  The Administrators of the German Wiki go so far as to delete from the discussion page the well-researched comments of Wiki readers.  Maybe the US administrators could check what is happening in the German Wiki, which is violating Wiki etiquette (and general rules of scholarship) right and left. I just checked the French article, which is fine.

With regard to Mradsl's addition to the English-language article, I have removed it because it is irrelevant to the article. What is important in an encyclopedia article is, for instance, de Zayas' new book on the case law of the Human Rights Committee (N.P.Engel Publishers, Strasbourg, 2009), not, however, whether his great grandfather was a professor or an acrobat. If you look at the de Zayas private web site (www.alfreddezayas.com), you will find much more information than in the Wiki article // but, needless to say, this is not the criterion for inclusion in the Wiki-article. The test is not whether a piece of information can be confirmed, but rather whether it is pertinent. You can easily confirm that de Zayas sings in the church choir and is a tenor (see his own website) -- but surely this information does not belong in the Wiki! Dear Mradsl, please accept the view of many other Wiki readers. This really does not deserve an edit war.193.239.220.248 (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article in the German Wiki is still skewed and vandalized. Amazing how political and below-the-belt some German Wiki-users are. e.g. they have a vendetta against de Zayas because of his human rights advocacy for the victims of the expulsion 1944-48. They quote as representative a negative review of an unknown "historian", who does not even have a doctorate, and ignore the excellent reviews of prominent professors of history and international law like Howard Levie, Benjamin Ferencz, Andreas Hillgruber, Gotthold Rhode, Christopher Greenwood, Dieter Fleck, Detlef Horn, etc. They suggest that de Zayas is too conservative, neglecting his very progressive human rights record in the UN and his many publications in the field -- e.g. his articles in the Oxford Encyclopedia on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2009) on Jose Ayala Lasso, Aryeh Nyer, P.E.N. and human rights, Bertrand Ramcharan, Kenneth Roth, Simon Wiesenthal, etc.212.128.78.7 (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The German article has evolved into an attack page that violates core policies of the English language Wikipedia and Wikipedia as a whole including WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and others. I suggest we remove the link to the German article as it contains material not allowed under English Wikipedia policies. Mrandsl (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, we need to figure out how to stop bots from readding German interwiki links that are BLP violations and pagerank spam. Relevant precedence is de:Kriminalfall von Amstetten where the interwiki link to the English language Wikipedia was removed because the content allegedly violated policies of the German project (by including the name of Joseph Fritzl). Mrandsl (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"You can easily confirm that de Zayas sings in the church choir and is a tenor (see his own website) -- but surely this information does not belong in the Wiki"
 * As a matter of fact, it's quite usual in Wikipedia biographies to include such information (often in sections on "personal life" or similar). Mrandsl (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mrandsl. I agree with IP 193.239.220.248|The test is not whether a piece of information can be confirmed, but rather whether it is pertinent. Please accept the view of many other Wiki readers. This really does not deserve an edit war.210.82.92.237 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am Dutch and new to Wikipedia. I have read only two of Zayas'books -- Nemesis and Wehrmacht. Both amazing books, original research, interviews, proper historical context. What I do not understand is why there has been no significant follow-up in academic writing in the U.S., Canada, U.K., or here in the Netherlands. The issue of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia should have reminded us of the much larger expulsion of Germans 1945-48, and of the many, many, many more victims. The Wehrmacht book also raises a large number of questions that should be further investigated. In any case, de Zayas is a pioneer. Wonder what personal price he has had to pay for braking so many taboos. 88.159.115.16 (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read his biography? He was exiled to Switzerland and had to labour in the mountains to scrap a living. He only remained sane because he secretly translated poems by Rilke, which were then smuggled out of the country to be published in the West. --78.53.40.25 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is pitiful, that the authors still remain anonymous ! Who consequently should actually read their contributions !? In any case: I of course do not, ladies and gentlemen !--Gunther Marko (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My summary of reading this page is that I think that we have here a typical kind of discussion about this article/biography which includes polemics and personal accusations. This is not the right way creating an encyclopedia on reliable sources and not the way of collaborating together in an objectively and properly manner. This includes the demonization of users who never have edited in en:WP and perhaps do not know about allegations here. I myself had made eight (8) contributions:, , , , , , , . As you can see, normal work writing an encyclopedia. My main work was putting reliable sources for biography information, and of course I had doubt about of the neutrality of this article, but the target was to complement biography data (which was vehementy opposed) . If that is a significant characteristic for a leftist contributor (which at least I am not), I do not really want to know in which political corner those contributors are who are doing this classifications. And of course dear lawyer Marko, also in the english WP we are using the same policy of anonymity as in de:WP.-- KarlV : DISKU  16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In his repetitious submissions in the German, Spanish and English Wiki articles KarlV demonstrates a polemical anti-Zayas bias that expresses itself, among others, in the systematic deletion of positive reviews. He may play innocent in the above submission, but anyone who has read his entries in many articles in the German Wikipedia knows what he is up to. In any event, if there is any question as to the neutrality of this article, it can be openly discussed on this page. 81.63.100.17 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that certain people seem to have forgotten that Alfred DeZayas is neither German nor Jew nor Polish...that he is a true independent scholar // unlike most German historians concerned about their careers and political correctness...

Furthermore, there is little doubt at this juncture that DeZayas approaches the subject matter both from the historical and legal perspectives // and that he can do this by having doctorates in both fields... something I consistently see lacking in the amateurs who have taken it upon themselves to become "critics" of this man's work...

Finally, no one can deny that 99% of the reviews of his books were positive...a feature distinctly lacking in these so-called critics... I would like to know who Karl IV is...what he has written...where he has taught...and if he is even a scholar... DeZayas is known...and my name is Raymond Lohne, Ph.D. at Columbia College Chicago...unmask your identity or shut the hell up already....67.184.223.103 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL. Although I understand the irritation, and am amused by the naughty language, isn't it somewhat out of place? ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Dr. Lohne makes sense. I think that there is no justification whatever for the POV and "neutrality" warnings. It seems like a rather cheap way to disparage Professor Zayas. 217.168.42.242 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear IPs and friends of de Zayas, as I can read you still continue with your personal lobby work for de Zayas. Wikipedia is a project for creating an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a substitute for his own webpage. So the neutrality is still disputed, because you want to change this article in a hymn of praise for him and try to prevent to mention critics of reputable reviewers like Wolfgang Benz, which do not follow your praise-line. And this is the real problem in all Wikis.-- KarlV : DISC  16:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I come to an appreciation of Zayas because of his intelligent legal analysis of the Guantanamo lease. If there is room for dispute on that, what would it be?( Martin | talk • contribs 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

German wikipedia about the expulsion of Germans is dominated by Czech and Polish nationalists, hand in hand with the German ultra-left. The American Wikipedia seems to be a little bit more liberal and biased, but nationalists from Poland and the Czech Republic are active, too. After the killing spree of the Norwegian Anders Breivik, Wikipedia has changed the articles about the Czechoslovakian Benes Decrees within hours. Breivik took his knowlegde from those very aggressive and biased Wiki articles. Wikipedia admins finally seem to be ashamed that he quoted more than 200 of their articles.--92.229.244.33 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotional writing
Our rule against promotional writing applies to talk pages as well as articles. Promotional content is likely to be removed.  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * and I have started. I strongly urge against restoring material removed without discussion here. I am trying to strengthen the article, not weaken it. It will be the stronger to the extent it conforms to our rules and customary practices.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So...nothing about criticism?
Why doesn't the article mention any criticism about de Zayas-there is plenty available....--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

European and German expellees have proposed Prof. Dr. Dr. de Zayas for the Nobel Prize of Peace this year.--92.224.206.219 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? What "European expellees" Gdynia expelle organisation as well? And how does it have to do anything with criticism? For that matter-anybody can be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. Let's start with criticism shall we-there seems a bit more on German wiki--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The criticism of Prof. de Zayas and especially the contributions in Wikipedia about the expulsion of the Germans and the Benes Decrees were used by the Norwegian killer and racist as a role model for the ethnic cleansing of Europe from Muslims.--92.228.178.101 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 dispute
Could someone please list the factual items that are in dispute in this article? A checklist... Say, the five top things: Top five problems --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.
 * 1-Lack of criticism section-which is quite established and notable regarding methods of his research and claims.
 * 2-Lack of political activity of the person-connection to German groups and controversial political figure Erika Steinbach.
 * 3-Swarming of non-notable information to boost image.
 * 4-Exploitation of his works by certain groups.
 * 5-didn't he receive an award from Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt? The article claims he did.


 * As has been noted earlier in this discussion, there are some Wiki users in Germany that have been vandalizing the German Wiki Article on "Alfred de Zayas". This is because they are proponents of the collective guilt of the Germans and ideologically against the German expellees, whom they refuse to consider as victims. De Zayas is a human rights expert and someone who as Chief of Petitions at the UN publicly defended all victims, regardless of race, colour or nationality, and who continues to do this in countless UN panels. The American Wiki should not follow the kind of edit-wars and defamations that consistently plague the German Wiki. I have consulted the articles on de Zayas in the Spanish-language and the French-language Wikis and they are fine. There is no need whatever for a "neutrality" label. This article is as neutral and informative as any in the Wiki. 85.1.24.34 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As has been noted in earlier discussions, there are plenty of anon and otherwise users on English wiki who insist on pushing the "the Germans were the real victims of World War II" POV and unfortunately de Zayas's work (regardless of his own intentions) serves as perfect ammunition for these kinds of sentiments. The difference seems to be that German wiki just doesn't put up with that kind of crap because they can readily tell it for what it is. On English (and apparently some other Wikis) you've got fewer folks who actually know the subject so the POV pushers get away with it.


 * At the end of the day the fact is that his "work" has been extensively criticized, he has been linked to advocacy on the part of extremist groups in Germany and these same groups often make use of his "work". If he received an award from the Holocaust denying ZFI that says something about how his "work" is used or abused by extremist groups. I guess that by itself could be kept out of the article on BLP grounds, IF he somehow refused to accept the award. If he did not, then that reflects on him and it's notable info which belongs in the article.   Volunteer Marek   23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Marek, the numbers are against you. How many critical reviews of de Zayas can you find? And not just in the internet -- I mean, in real libraries, consulting solid journals? If you take the trouble, you will find that top historians have given "Nemesis at Potsdam" (Routledge) and "A Terrible Revenge" (Macmillan) excellent reviews and have praised his methodology and thoroughness. Off the cuff I can mention the reviews by Prof. Dr. Gotthold Rhode, Prof. Dr. Andreas Hillgruber, Prof. Dr. Otto Kimminich, Prof. Dr. LaVern Rippley, Prof. Dr. James Wolfe, Prof. Dr. Carl Anthon.  and since the Zayas books take an inter-disciplinary approach, the reviews in the American Journal of International Law by US Nürnberg Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, in the Journal of the American Bar Association, etc. have been excellent too.  It seems that you are intent on defamation and maybe you should be excluded from the Wiki, because you know as well as I do (but the average Wiki reader does not know it) that the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt is NOT a Holocaust-denying institute, and it is infamous of you to suggest it. The ZFI is a group of conservative professors that is close to the Catholic Church and its political ties are thoroughly mainstream -- mainly to the CDU and CSU.  Its chief Dr. Alfred Schickel holds the Bundesverdienstkreuz and has written countless articles in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. By inventing an accusation against the ZFI, you try to defame de Zayas through the old "guilt by association" method. This breaches not just Wiki-etiquette, but also intellectual honesty.

And while I am at it, let me address some of the concerns of Moloboaccount. He raised five points: 1-Lack of criticism section-which is quite established and notable regarding methods of his research and claims. Indeed there has been limited scholarly criticism of de Zayas, and much praise as everybody can read in the hundreds of reviews of his work.-- Unlike some historians who are evidently biased -- de Zayas, who is not German or Pole -- did his own research in the archives and consulted the relevant polish, czech, russian literature (de Zayas speaks and reads Russian). Anyone can confirm this by consulting the footnotes. 2-Lack of political activity of the person-connection to German groups and controversial political figure Erika Steinbach. -- To the extent that some of de Zayas activities has focused on expulsion and ethnic cleansing, of course he has interviewed Erika Steinbach, Hartmut Koschyk and other functionaries -- as he has interviewed thousands of expellees. In the context of his work on Yugoslavia, he has interviewed countless politicians, professors, diplomats from Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. De Zayas not only believes in hearing all sides -- he practices this, as you can confirm in the footnotes. 3-Swarming of non-notable information to boost image.-- No objection to dropping some of the irrelevant stuff. I, for one, would take out the coat of arms of the Zayas family. Who cares? 4-Exploitation of his works by certain groups. -- De Zayas gets applause from all sides. It would be worrisome if only the victims themselves were to recognize his work. But the key historians and international lawyers quote de Zayas. Not without reason de Zayas was invited to write the article "Forced Population Transfer" for the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Not without reason he wrote the article "Vertriebene" for the Handwörterbuch zur Deutschen Einheit, published by the Bundeszentrale für Politische bildung. 5-didn't he receive an award from Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt? -- Yes, de Zayas received this award (reported in the Frankfurter allgemeine Zeitung) and he has received many other awards from the Armenians, the Cypriots and many organizations. He has even received awards for his Rilke translations. De Zayas is an active member of the international P.E.N. club and has participated in the P.E.N. annual congresses in Mexico City, Berlin etc. You must broaden your research in the internet and not just go around muckracking.193.239.220.249 (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @IP 193... it would help if you would register an account. There are so many anons and sock puppets active here these days, so this would be good for you and us. As for positive reviews, you probably have a point. I've checked a number of those, in particular in The Times, that definitely aren't biased sources. As for ZFI, I'm not so sure. My gut feeling was that it's just a (national-)conservative institution, given what politically motivated agitation there was against the institution, but some of the more reliable sources a certain interested party brought up in the corresponding article clearly offer alternative views. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Miacek. This whole talk about anons and IPs is misleading. Registering an account is no guarantee for competence or reliability. There are plenty of registered Wiki-users who write total nonsense and get away with it. Nonsense should be removed -- but not on the basis of registration. I would also like to remind you and others of the Wiki rule: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous". I think that the attacks on ZFI are not only ridiculous, they are libellous. Moreover, there is a larger issue here:  one of mobbing and intimidation, as has been noted in a number of recent critical articles on the Wiki. Sensible contributions with solid sources are removed when they displease the political slant of the next Wiki-user. And sometimes Administrators are also guilty of manipulation, as I have frequently noticed in the German Wiki. This article on "Alfred de Zayas" is not a forum for discussing the ethnic cleansing of the East European Germans 1944-48. There is a Wiki article on that. As far as reviews, the New York Times reviewed de zayas favourably, the American Journal of International Law, the Times Educational Supplement, the Presse (Vienna), the Neue Zürcher Zeitung in 2006 etc. It is actually remarkable that so many positive reviews were written, considering that the subject matter was taboo until de Zayas broke the taboo. What this article should show is that de zayas has been a pioneer in a number of fields: breaking the taboo on the expulsion, being the first historian to examine the 226 volumes of records of the Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle and writing a successful book about it, doing a prime-time television special on this subject for WDR/ARD, German channel one, and giving a long interview to CNN on Katyn and other crimes, doing the first English-language translation of Rainer Maria Rilke's Larenopfer, writing the most successful book on the issue of the Right to One's Homeland -- not only for the Germans, but for the Poles, the Serbs, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Armenians, the Cypriots, the Kurds etc., contributing to the drafting of the Declaracion de Bilbao and Declaracion de Santiago on the Human Right to Peace and participating in the first UN Workshop of the human right to peace, held in Geneva in December 2009. These are important ground-breaking activities -- and the article should not be sidetracked by German ideologues, who are obsessed with the own belly-buttons, or by Poles or Czechs who pretend to white-wash the expulsion of 15 million human beings at the end of WWII. Objectively, it was much worse that the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and there is enough uncontrovertible evidence out there to be able to discuss the issue sedately.193.239.220.249 (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding 193: I find it easier to keep track of a name than a number when reading a discussion. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Dear arguer, there is no justification for questioning the credibility of Mr. de Zayas here. There is a curious mobbing in the German Wiki against all authors, who take up the issue of the German expellees. De Zayas was the first to write about the topic "German expellees" in the English language and his scholarship and impeccable methodology have been recognized by the bulk of the scholarly press. See more than one hundred positive reviews in http://www.alfreddezayas.com/books.shtml. Does User Moloboaccount have an axe to grind, too? 92.225.230.109 (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Christian Schulz, Germany.


 * Dear Volunteer Marek. There is no justification whatever for the label you insist in adding. This article has been in the Wiki for many, many years, there has been ample discussion on it, and nothing prevents you from further contributing to the discussion, as long as your sources are reliable. If you disagree with what de Zayas writes on this or that, say so, but there is no need to burden a mature article with insinuations and labels. De Zayas is an open book. Just look at his website and the many articles, reviews, documents there. Moreover, this Wiki entry brings 103 footnotes and extensive bibliography. What more do you want? This article is informative and well balanced. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of the expulsion of the Germans, then go to the article on that subject. Kind regards 193.239.220.249 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User Marek is not playing by the rules. He again adds an unjustified POV label without making any explanation on the discussion page. Is he some kind of a militant? His insinuations are defamatory, because de Zayas is not "controversial" except with the extreme left wing in Germany and with apologists of the crimes of the German Democratic Republic. De Zayas was invited by the German government's official museum -- Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" to write the article on expulsion and international law for their big traveling exibition "Flucht Vertreibung Integration" 2005-2007. He was invited to the 4-man panel of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Germany's foremost academic institute for contemporary history) at sat there with Professors from the Universities Oxford, Sorbonne and Moscow. He has written six entries in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights, including the entry on Simon Wiesenthal, and six entries in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Public International Law, including the entry "Forced Population Transfers", the subject of his book Nemesis at Potsdam. He has received many awards in his career, including from the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, which Marek in an inacceptably defamatory manner accuses to be Holocaust denying institution -- Well, the fact is that this Centre is not at all Holocaust-denying (a below-the belt accusation), but a conservative think tank with close association with the Catholic Church in Germany and none of its conferences or publications have ever denied or diminished the Holocaust. Marek's statement is deliberate libel and should be removed from the discussion page. But the reason for the defamation seems to be to "get" de Zayas indirectly by suggesting guilt by association. Now, it should be obvious to everyone that de Zayas is a respected human rights expert and retired UN official whose publications deal with victims of human rights violations -- whether victims of the Argentinian or Chilean military juntas, the Guantanamo military commissions, the discriminated Afro-Americans, the disenfranchised American "Indians", the massacred Armenians and Greeks, the expelled Cypriots, the Kurds or the 15 million Germans expelled from their 700 year old homelands 1944-48. Marek objects to the Germans being considered victims. Now, what is that supposed to mean? That a German civilian expelled from his 700 year old homeland in East Prussia is not a victim? Where is the justification for that expulsion? How about an expelled Kosovar? Or an expelled Serb from the Krajina or from Mitrovica? Or an expelled Palestinian from the Occupied Territories? Are these people not entitled to respect and compassion? Isn't human dignity common to all of us? Animus63 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * agree with Animus.193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Parts of Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau are reproduced in the Red Cross textbook "How does Law Protect in War", edited by Marco Sassoli and Antoine Bouvier, ICRC, Geneva 2011.193.239.220.248 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues are already listed above. Please do not remove the POV tag until they are addressed/resolved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No substantiated issues have been listed. As long as you have no specific items to come up with, please don't (re-)add the tag. This can be seen as disruptive. You know just as well as I do, that Molobo's 'points' like “[l]ack of criticism section-which is quite established” have no merit and at least at the moment just qualify as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have some personal aversion to the subject of this article, well, I can't help, but please remember our own biases, gut feelings etc. don't make for a substantial discussion. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes there are issues. For example:
 * I believe the fact that he got an award from ZFI has been substantiated. This is briefly mentioned in the article but the nature of the Institute - the fact they're a bunch of historical revisionists and holocaust deniers - is not.
 * The fact that de Zayas has been accused of "relativizing Nazi crimes" (by a Conservative institution!) and has made crazy statements calling Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill "war criminals" is also not in the article.
 * The fact that he's a favorite of various extremist groups and neo-Nazis can be easily verified by checking those websites. I'll let you find those on your own.
 * He is generally regarded, at least as "controversial" . This is not in the article.
 * His books have been described as "revisionist history" (further criticisms within the source) or that he's been described as "far-right"
 * Zayas' anti-Israel statements.
 * The fact that the whole article is written as a fanboy puff piece and is completely devoted to presenting a most favorable POV of the person is self evident to anyone who reads it.
 * Don't remove tags because you disagree with these criticisms. Help to address the issue in the article itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the links you provided just mentions the name de Zayas with the epithet 'far-right', without substantiating, what's supposedly far-right there. So that one isn't helpful. As for Claremont, they mention the name in connection with historical revisionism (noting he has classified Roosevelt and Churchill as war criminals), but do not exactly say he's relativizing Nazi German policies. Being conservative is no guarantee a of having common sense either (for example, I personally wouldn't pay much attention to what press close to Liga Polskich Rodzin writes). Btw, serious historians can be seen as revisionists, in that they revise commonly accepted truths (i.e. convenient lies). Jan T. Gross can be seen as one. Nevertheless, if you are aware of scholarly criticism on Zayas's findings, you are free to add (needless to say, Anton Maegerle or stuff published by the far-left website 'Rechter Rand' won't do this time). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If a source uses this "epithet" then it uses that "epithet", take it up with the source. You can't ask sources to "substantiate" their claims or to reject a source simply because you don't feel it fully "substantiates" something - that's a personal interpretation of sources, hence OR.
 * Claremont talks about him in a section entitled "Relativizing Nazi Crimes" and it's quite obvious from the context that Zayas is one of the people doing this. Again, it's not up to you to judge whether this source has "common sense" or not.
 * Serious historians can of course revise commonly accepted lies - wth does Gross have to do with this, aside from you using him to possibly get a reaction from me, which just shows how little you know me? - but here the word "revisionist historian" has a very specific meaning. It roughly means "holocaust denying scum". You're equivocating on the word "revision".
 * Classifying Roosevelt and Churchill as "war criminals" is most certainly fringe and rings all kinds of alarm bells.
 * These are all reliable sources. The lack of any kind of criticism in the article, and the fawning text is obviously a POV problem. Hence the tag needs to go back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * “but here the word "revisionist historian" has a very specific meaning. It roughly means "holocaust denying scum".” - Hm, I don't know if I got it right (looks quite slanderous at first glance). Any sources for assumption that Zayas might be "holocaust denying scum" or is it just another case of liberal interpretation of sources, i.e. an exercise at reductio ad Hitlerum? Also, I must say I disagree with your reply “can't ask sources to "substantiate" their claims or to reject a source simply because you don't feel it fully "substantiates" something”. No, that's not how an encyclopedia should work. Last year I had a case in German wiki when the nasty troll Dodo19 aka Quasimodogeniti kept going on and on with the libel in the article on Viktor Suvorov, claiming Suvorov is a holocaust denier - which he patently isn't - and for this purpose similarly used a single line from some German ignoramus's newspaper article, which indeed was published in a quite respectable paper (the quote concerned read: Dabei verwies er auf den Holocaust-Leugner Viktor Suworow. It just shows the amount of ignorance that even people with some credentials can have, if they try to opine under the circumstances they would do wiser to keep their mouth shut. „Hättest Du geschwiegen, dann wärst Du ein Weiser geblieben“, a good German proverb tells us. So just a few lines taken out of the context or, well, unsubstantiated opinions by someone - even if theoretically published in WP:RS - are no warrant of flawlessness. That was my point, when I told you that scholarly sources and the ones who really treat the matter in some detail resp. substantiate their opinions are to be preferred. I can't see how someone with academic credential would like to disagree here. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, here the "historical revisionist", with that meaning of the phrase, applies to ZFI - Zayas "just" accepted an award from them. I don't care about dodo, except that it's annoying that you've been using him as an excuse to remove text from article you don't like - but two wrongs don't make a right. Likewise since we're talking about Holocaust denial here, Goodwin's Law nor any claims about "reductio ad Hitlerum" actually apply So let me reiterate. We have:
 * Zayas accepting an award from an organization which IS in fact associated with historical revisionism
 * Zayas being called "controversial" and "extremist" by several sources, as well as discussed in an article on "relativizing Nazi crimes".
 * Zayas being extremely popular with various neo-Nazi and other extremist organizations.
 * The whole article being written as a puff piece.
 * All that adds up to POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And a quick look at your points would immediately disqualify at least no 3 which is an obvious case of guilt by association. Of course, all German nationalists would prefer the authors who pay more attention to misdeeds committed against Germans (it fits with the agenda), just like some authors are very popular with the far-left (there are such people, too, right?). For example, German far left of the Antideutsche tendency would selectively quote conservative authors, too, as far as Nazism or the right-wing are being criticized. This tells absolutely nothing about the merit of the scholar's works. As for your discarding my warning to beware of insidious BLP violations in the way this troll was doing (you naturally did your best to defend his actions here on English Wiki), I must say I so far haven't been using “him as an excuse to remove text from article”, I'm just giving my best to have violations of our policies and encyclopedic standards removed or, even better, have those never committed. As I noticed a similar problem in your line of thought, I just indicated that there's a similarity. If you fail to see it, it's your problem. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, it may not be de Zayas fault that various neo-Nazis treat his works the same way that Maoists treat the Little Red Book. Though it does raise the question - why? Anyway, even putting that aside, the other points by themselves are enough to slap a POV tag on this article. I don't know what you're talking about with this "similarity" - just sounds like, um, "unsubstantiated" innuendo of the indeterminate sort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought my point was very clear: to claim Viktor Suvorov is an holocaust denier was unsubstantiated (even though theoretically sourced). We wouldn't like to see similar POV pushing/factual errors here, right? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think the two situations are in any way comparable? You could make the same argument for anyone anyplace. Just because somebody wrote something silly about Suvorov at some point doesn't mean that we are now prevented for ever after for indicating what sources say in other situations.
 * And anyway - the relevant policy states that the criticisms should be included but attributed. Likewise the nature of ZFI needs to be clarified. The "omg, this is my favorite pop band" tone of the article needs to be toned down - this ain't Justin Bieber. Unless that is done, the article needs a POV tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Marek, the argument that because A likes B and A is a notorious baddy, that surely B must be a baddy too, is hardly convincing. This is guilt by association. You would have to show that only baddies respect B and that the "good guys" reject him. But, if you look at the reviews of de Zayas' books, you realize that he got praise from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Review of Books, The American Journal of International Law, Times Education Supplement,the Times, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, die ZEIT, der Spiegel etc. So much for guilt by association. The guy has gotten a lot of awards, most recently from the Canadians for Genocide Education, a coalition of Armenians, Bosnians, Croats, Jews, Rwandans, Tamils, Ukrainians etc. What this article need is less emphasis on Germany and the bloody second world war(which apparently some Wiki-users are still fighting) and much more emphasis on Human Rights and human dignity. If you consult the internet -- among other things his own website -- you will see his manifold activities on behalf of the Mujaheidin of Ashraf, the First Nations of North and South America, the Christian minorities in the Islamic countries, the detainees of Guantanamo and other "unsung victims".Animus63 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * agree with Animus. Among the activities of deZ is promotion of universal jurisdiction for war crimes and crimes against humanity. On 7 May the Kant Association in Freiburg, Germany conferred upon the Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon the Kant Weltbuergerpreis or Kant award for human rights. Garzon, who now works for the International Criminal Court in The Hague, is famous because of the prosecution of members of the Argentinian military juntas and for the 1999 indictment of Pinochet, the controversial extradition request to Great Britain, and more generally because of the struggle against impunity. deZ delivered the laudatory speech to Garzon.89.247.152.203 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks. Just found the newspaper article on Garzon/Zayas. http://www.badische-zeitung.de/freiburg/leute-xl5quxpqx--45052819.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animus63 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to the article in the Badische Zeitung of 9 May 2011, page 26, does not work. Maybe you have to go on the archive of the Badische Zeitung and pay for a copy of the article. I just found a facsimile of the article on the Zayas site. http://www.alfreddezayas.com/aimages/BZ_9_Mai_2011_Seite_26_Kant.pdf193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The event is reported and the Laudatio published in the Swiss weekly Zeit-Fragen of 23 May 2011, on page 10. http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/index.php?id=214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.220.249 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Norwegian assassin Anders Breiwik took his concept for expelling Muslims from Europe from the Benes Decrees. The Czechoslovakian president Edvard Benes expelled 3 million Sudeten Germans from Bohemia after 700 years there at the end of World War 2. Breiwik used historically distorted Wikipedia information for his killing of 77 young Norwegian socialists. Prof. de Zayas is the most outstanding historian who has always supported German expellees and fought for their rights. He has, however, always had a bad standing in the German Left political scene.In the long run he has proved right. Hopefully his reputation will be changing now after this horrible crime in Norway.--92.229.244.33 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC) The


 * Breiwik ist a nut case. But undoubtedly the Benes Decrees were criminal and would constitute "intent" to commit genocide under article 2 of the Genocide Convention of 1948. The expulsion of the Germans 1945-48 -- not only from Czechoslovakia, but also from East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, East Brandenburg, etc. -- was a crime against humanity, far worse in scope and consequences than the "ethnic cleansing" that we know from the former Yugoslavia 1991-1999. It is true that in the past 20 years of so, a number of extreme leftists in Germany and "apologists" of Benes have moved away from de Zayas objective and non-polemical presentation of the historical facts.  This is probably a temporary problem.  The reviews of de Zayas books in the German scholarly press -- including the Historische Zeitschrift and Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht were excellent, and his work is regularly cited by scholars in Germany, the US, UK, etc.  The problem is that the subject matter has become "controversial" in some circles, and that politically-oriented historians like Eva Hahn, Wolfgang benz usw. dislike not only the objectivity of de Zayas, but also that of Norman Naimark and other American historians. Give it ten more years, and things will look differently.83.78.79.198 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is still a POV mess and any attempts at improving the situation have been thwarted by a coterie of anonymous IPs like 92.229etc above who have taken Ownership of the article and prevent even the notification of the reader that this article is not neutral. Saying that "de Zayas is controversial" is the least that can be said. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Marek. You are entitled to your point of view as everyone else. And essentially you are as "anonymous" as all the IPs, including myself. Now, de Zayas is a professor of international law and a former senior UN lawyer. As President of the Swiss-french PEN he cannot be too controversial. But he does write clearly on controversial topics that other lawyers and historians seem to avoid. His new book just had a positive review in the Netherlands International Law Review. You should discuss the controversial issues in the respective articles, not here. Kind regards81.62.83.62 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia discussion page about Prof. de Zayas has been cleaned after complaints about some left admins, such as KarIV. KarIV defended himself on his account, he did not misuse his personal left ideas to harm the neutrality of Wiki. After Breivik German media have started to supervise Wiki`s influence.--92.229.15.38 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

List of works
Colleague, this is encylcopedia, not a curriculum vitae, and as a general rule, only notable (or noticed) things must be described. In the case of publications, it is reasonable to list only really major ones (eg. books) and these which have been discussed in press or academic community. Also, brief descriptions of importance (eg 3rd party reviews or referrals) would be helpful. Thanks for your contribution. `'mikka 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you are indeed Alfred de Zayas or his relative, I'd like to direct you to a wikipedia guideline, Conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.201.57 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

D
Dear Readers, as far as the Article on A Terrible Revenge line 12 must be removed

In the book, de Zayas claims that approximately two million Germans died during the post period of 1944-1949, although most recent research on the subject has put the number at around half a million.

In fact, the most recent research has been conducted by de Zayas and published 2012 in his "50 Theses on the Expulsion of the Germans" ISBN 978-3-9812110-4-7 There,on pp. 55-58 de Zayas convincingly explains that none of the "recent research" is professional or methodologically reliable and that therefore one must continue to rely on the demographic studies of the Statistisches Bundesamt and those of Dr. Fritz Peter Habel and Gerhard Reichling. Although, according to a study at the German Federal Archives of 1974, at least half a million were murdered directly, succumbing to beatings, dying of rape, shooting etc., a million and a half died as a direct consequence of the expulsions, since these were brutal and disorderly and Germany was in a state of total collapse upon their arrival -- so that a humanitarian catastrophe ensued, as abundantly reported in United States and British official memoranda and studies. Moreover, nearly two million East Germans were carted off to slave labour in the Soviet Union and some 40% of them perished on the way to the Urals and Siberia,l during their hard years of slave labour, or during their repatriation. Attempting to reduce the number of German dead from 2.2 million to half a million is as obnoxious as attempting to reduce the number of Holocaust dead from six million to one million as some revisionists do.Dr. Raymond Lohne, Columbia College Chicago70.89.220.194 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION

The Fall issue of the Netherlands International Law Review brings a long article by Alfred de Zayas and Aurea Roldan on the new General comment of the Human Rights Committee on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. See http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8777284&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0165070X12000289 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.220.249 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

New round of anti-Semitic accusations
Circulating now among the evangelical right, and from the likes of professional Islamophobe Pam Geller, are a slew of obviously organized attacks against de Zayas, placing him (as do his trendy left wing attackers here on Wikipedia) in the ranks of anti-Semites.

This is defamation and incompatible with Wikipedia rules. De Zayas books are scholarly and brilliantly reviewed in the top scholarly journals such as American Journal of International Law, Cambridge Law Journal, etc. He publishes with Macmillan. As far as his alleged views on Israel, I have NEVER seen anything by him that goes one inch beyond what the Security Council and the General Assembly say. The man is independent. Basta! Logeslohn (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)logeslohn people... This is pure vandalism and must stop. IP 24.215.200.146 must be barred from vandalizing the page Defamation is NOT allowed in the Wikipedia Raymond Lohne, Ph.D. Columbia College Chicago67.184.223.247 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The same IP 24.215.200.146 has added false and highly defamatory information four times in a row. This IP must be permanently barred from tampering with this article. What he claims is demonstrably wrong. Alfred de Zayas gives hundreds of interviews to many journalists, including on sensitive issues like the Isaeli-Lebanese war in 2006. The source given by IP 24.215.200.146 is an interview given in 2006 at the time of the Lebanese conflict. I have just read the interview. Zayas comments are strictly linked to an analysis of the situation in terms of international law. His criticism of the policies of the then Israeli government is entirely legitimate and certainly not equivalent with anti-semitism. To claim that he is anti-semitic, because he insists that GA and Security Council resolutions be observed is abstruse and malicious.83.79.23.247 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Retaliation
The ethic cleansing of Germans only affected a few Germans after all. Beyond that, following the genocide to the jews and disabled people it can be simply regarded as retaliation. And no matter if they deserved it or not, Germany is nowadays one of the most heavily populated countries. It' still funny how we weren't teached this in school, but hey, there are many many more things we aren't eached in school. --178.197.236.163 (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061211144411/http://www.internationalpen.org.uk:80/index.php?pid=19 to http://www.internationalpen.org.uk/index.php?pid=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201112320/http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/vardy/vardy.doc to http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/vardy/vardy.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606031312/http://www.poetsagainstthewar.org/displaypoem.asp?AuthorID=4041 to http://www.poetsagainstthewar.org/displaypoem.asp?AuthorID=4041#453084534

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed POV label
I have removed the POV label because the article is fine as it is -- and contains 103 footnotes, which is remarkable for a biography. It is undisputed that de Zayas is a leading human rights expert who has published extensively on the rights of minorities, indigenous peoples, the human right to peace and the right to one's homeland, and who sits on many UN panels. His early work on the German expellees was pioneering -- the first publications in English about the expulsion of 15 million human beings from homelands where their ancestors had lived for 700 years. When he studied history at Harvard in the 1960's this subject simply did not exist, as if it had not happened. He deserves much recognition for having broken the taboo in a scholarly and sedate manner. The Preface of "Nemesis at Potsdam" by Eisenhower's Political Advisor Ambassador Robert Murphy is in itself a document of historical importance. This subject matter was totally taboo for decades, and even in spite of two best-selling books with Routledge and Macmillan (two highly respected publishers), the subject matter remains rather ignored and avoided by most historians. His books have received a tremendously positive academic response, notwithstanding the difficulty of the subject matter. Reviewers have noted the archival work and interviews by de Zayas and praised his methodology and objectivity. The very few criticisms that have been published are not well founded. Either the reviewers did not read the books, or they were committed to a collective-guilt paradigm. See more than 140 reviews in http://www.alfreddezayas.com/books.shtml and responses to some of the criticisms of obviously politically motivated reviewers.Dr. Raymond Lohne,Columbia College Chicago67.184.223.103 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411000000/http://www. to http://www.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411000000/http://www. to http://www.
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.unspecial.org/UNS707/t41.html
 * Added tag to http://www.unspecial.org/UNS680/t24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720015314/http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/fileadmin/images/Das_IfZ/jb2005.pdf to http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/fileadmin/images/Das_IfZ/jb2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324211210/http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/events/2003/november/guantana.pdf to http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/events/2003/november/GUANTANA.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512041310/http://www.unspecial.org/UNS680/t24.html to http://www.unspecial.org/UNS680/t24.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfred de Zayas memorandum regarding the Hawaiian Islands
I have attempted to include the following de Zayas excerpt from his memorandum found at https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf and quoted in the Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/29/hawaii-politician-jennifer-ruggles-sovereign-country:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, publishing a legal memorandum that states: "I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)."

However, this excerpt has been repeatedly removed from his wikipedia page. I cleaned up my introduction and summary leading into his excerpt- however my edit was still removed. I am simply quoting his work- this is not my personal opinion. Please advise. (SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC))
 * This content does not belong in the lead section of the article, because the purpose of that section is to summarize the body of the article. "Advocacy" is a better section. The quote is excessively long in the context of this biography, since this person is involved with many, many issues other than Hawai'i and we don't have lengthy quotes from him on those other issues. Hawaiiankingdom.org is not a reliable source for general use on Wikipedia because it is an advocacy website. Also, de Zayas is no longer the UN independent expert. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's OK to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles; however, if you're "improvement" is undone or reverted by another editor who leaves an edit summary indicating something other than being a case of clear-cut vandalism, then you are obligated to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion on the article's talk page to try and establish a consensus for inclusion. You shouldn't simply keep trying to add the content over and over again because this is likely going to be seen a edit warring. Now, regarding this particular quote, I tend to agree with Cullen328 in that it might be possible to mention something about this in a neutrally worded sentence about Hawaii, but the long quote seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia articles are not really the place to right great wrongs and not every thing Zayas has said or done needs to be mentioned. So, maybe a shortened version of what the Guardian wrote would be better suited for this article or even better perhaps in Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Finally, I also agree that hawaiiankingdom.org is not a reliable source for Wikipedia pruposes. Anyway, I've hid the content for the time being until a consensus can be established for its inclusion. I've also posted a Please see at WT:HAWAII to let that WikiProject know about the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, I am happy to continue the discussion to reach a consensus. However, I have some disagreement with the points you and Cullen make about my sourcing/citing. The hawaiiankingdom.org website provides the PDF of the de Zayas memorandum. Its an official document written by de Zayas and therefore I see no relevance in discussing the websites legitimacy, because they are simply providing the original source document. Also, I cited the guardian article as well, however it is unclear to me why the guardian is a legitimate source of information while hawaiiankingdom.org is not. All media representations are partial, partisan and problematic, how do you deal with inherent human bias? Meanwhile I cited the original source document of the de Zayas excerpt I provided. The de Zayas Wikipedia page is about him, and therefore sharing excerpts of his writing to describe a significant conversation that he has contributed much to, seems quite relevant and unbiased in the sense of reporting on it. Especially when the reporting content is mostly just his excerpt being posted to his page, again about a significant event that he has deeply impacted.


 * In addition, there is inconsistency when we look at what is allowed on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement page contrasting my edit on the Alfred de Zayas page. For example, there is no citation at the end of this paragraph, and the statement is important, because it is a falsification of Hawaiian history as I know from historian Ron Williams, PHD, who works at the Hawaii State Archives, and specializes in the history of the Home Rule Party. He tells us that the political party known as the Home Rule Party supported and successfully passed a great deal of legislation, all of which was vetoed by the American installed territory governor. In addition describing the party as radical compared to the Democratic Party of Hawaii is also exaggerative opinionated writing. Regardless this biased version of history also has no citation:


 * Home Rule Party of Hawaii
 * Main article: Home Rule Party of Hawaii
 * Following the annexation of Hawaii, Wilcox formed the Home Rule Party of Hawaii on June 6, 1900. The Party was generally more radical than the Democratic Party of Hawaii. They were able to dominate the Territorial Legislature between 1900 and 1902. But due to their radical and extreme philosophy of Hawaiian nationalism, infighting was prominent. This, in addition to their refusal to work with other parties, meant that they were unable to pass any legislation. Following the election of 1902 they steadily declined until they disbanded in 1912.[citation needed] SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the document should be treated as a primary source which means that it needs to be used carefully, and any interpretation of the document is going to need to come from reliable secondary sources, which I don't think hawaiiankingdom.com qualifies as and is what I meant by it being non-reliable. I apologize if I wasn't clear about that. All sources are biased to some degree as explained in WP:BIASED, but Wikipedia limits us to using only those which are condsidered to be reliable. Personally, I'm not exactly sure the Guardian would be a reliable source in this particular context for anything but the quote itself, but major newspapers are generally considered have in place fairly strong editorial controls and do fact checking of what they publish, and it seems unlikely that as a major newpspaper would knowingly misquote something or link to a doctored or otherwise altered pdf file. So, it would be better to find an official UN source for the document than a convenience link if you want to cite it and then a reliable secondary source for any interpretation of it. Then, there would still be the question of whether adding all the content you're proposing would be WP:UNDUE in comparison to the other content in that particular section.As for the other articles you mentioned, those articles may indeed have problems and those should be addressed on their article talk pages; that, however, doesn't necessarily mean their mistakes should be repeated in this article. Perhaps some members from WP:HAWAII will be more familiar with the subject matter and be able to provide more specific feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy material
I've been trying to make this article somewhat more encyclopedic, as it has been tagged for a while with multiple issues. So far, I don't think I've done anything overly bold, but |this edit, in which I removed material (citing primary sources) mentioning various side panels and minor writing that he's done, might be worth others' checking in case I'm going too far. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I'm also not sure if encyclopedia entries and the like are noteworthy enough to include in a bibliography, so if anyone could look at this section with an eye to de-cluttering that would be good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred-Maurice_de_Zayas#Articles_and_chapters BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Is UNWatch a reliable source?
I presume not, but lots of info here: https://www.unwatch.org/u-n-to-endorse-hero-of-holocaust-deniers-alfred-de-zayas/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand it may be biased, but I'm not sure if it is unreliable. A discussion in the reliable sources noticeboard may have been opened before. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was raised in 2009, a bit inconclusively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#UN_Watch I might look at it carefully and check its own sources for inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another probably non-reliable source, Inquisitr, possibly worth looking at for its sources: https://www.inquisitr.com/448974/un-general-assembly-to-appoint-hero-of-holocaust-deniers-alfred-de-zayas-to-human-rights-commission/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And another from Libertad Digital: https://www.libertaddigital.com/internacional/estados-unidos/2017-09-29/el-experto-de-la-onu-que-apoya-el-golpismo-catalan-es-pronazi-y-procastrista-1276606710/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

UN Watch is not a credible source but a political lobby that has already defamed many respectable people including High Commissioners Mary Robinson, Navi Pillay and rapporteurs Jean Ziegler, Olivier de Schutter, John Dugard etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) — CubaHavana2018 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

de Zayas' blogs
This may be long due, but I wanted to comment that Alfred de Zayas wrote an article back in April addressing concerns directly at this article. This has also happened in May 2018 and May of the current year. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jamez. The blogs address some of the issues that are mentioned on the wiki page. Should we add his responses to the page. We can use his blog as a reference for his views and beliefs. Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we should use these primary sources as references, specially since the article has been tagged with said problem, and I'm worried about cyclical sources. Despite my concerns of conflicts of interest and neutrality, I think they should be used as a reference of which problems could be solved--Jamez42 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have read the blogs in question -- and they raise legitimate issues. Zayas is a public figure, a long-serving UN high official and UN rapporteur. Precisely because many people know him, it is probable that UN personnel or retired personnel, who know of him or have read his articles in the staff magazine UN Special and other UN publications would be the first "suspects" with ideas how to improve the article. Should this should disqualify them from contributing to the Wiki ? -- actually, these users are in a better position to understand the reports in proper context. It should not be deemed "conflict of interest" when any of 10,000 UN staffers go on the internet and add or delete something from a Wikipedia article. This applies not only to the de Zayas article, but any article e.g. on other staffers or on UN issues and resolutions. It is a simple "fact" that many people know the guy and therefore feel motivated to read the Wiki article for more information, and then may be tempted to make additions or deltetions. The editors may consider removing the template of November 2016. Back to the issues raised in Zayas' blog -- these have to do with balance, which requires that positive and negative reviews of his books be published, positive and negative views on his reports to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly. There seems to be an active anti-Zayas group of users who go out of their way to input dubious allegations. The test should not be whether the allegations were published somewhere -- but whether the information is worthy of publication in the Wiki -- whether they are credible or mere political smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senecaminor (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article has had a template "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with this subject". This template has been there since November 2016 without any apparent resolution. What exactly is meant by a "close connection with the subject" ? Bearing in mind that de Zayas has written many books and articles, was a high UN official and a UN independent expert, there are presumably thousands of people who may have a "close connection" with the person in question. Unless there is some solid evidence about conflict of interest, I think that the template should be removed. Surely many UN staffers know de Zayas personally -- or know of him. Ditto with regard to his students and former students at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, Geneva Graduate Institute, University of British Columbia etc. Of course, many who disagree with him may similarly have a "close connection".

A new article about de Zayas
Ruggles’ Supposed Sovereignty “Expert” Has A Troubling Past, Hawai'i Free Press Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the almost total absence of secondary sources in our current article, this looks like something we should use. Is it considered RS? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, UN Watch is not a reliable source but a political lobby that has already defamed many respectable people - even including Jean Ziegler! --87.170.201.182 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the claim that Professor de Zaya has been treated as a pariah, the quoted article does not say that since the Historikerstreit he has been treated as a pariah -- the article, published in a left-wing Canadian magazine called "Humanist Perspectives" is a criticism against the political intolerance in Germany against non mainstream views and strongly criticizes the politicization of German history-writing and the failure of German historians to respect basic rules of historiography. De Zayas does NOT say that he has been treated as a pariah -- in fact, the word pariah does not appear once in the entire article -- but he does say that because of the atmosphere of politicization, he no longer accepts invitations to speak there, because " I will not concoct a politically correct narrative to satisfy an audience that is no longer interested in truth, but only in entertainment and witch hunts. I will continue fighting for freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and that most important right – the right to our own ideas and perspectives. That is human dignity in practice."

https://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue204/zayas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)  — CubaHavana2018 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Throughout his career Alfred de Zayas has broken many taboos. Although the scholarly press has largely welcomed his books and articles, the political establishment has strongly reacted, denouncing him sometimes as a fascist, sometimes as a marxist, a communist a "Castrista" etc. His first book Nemesis at Potsdam was savagely criticized in the Soviet Union and its satellites, ditto his second book The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau. De Zayas has also angered many because of his advocacy on behalf of indigenous peoples in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, as well as on behalf of the native Alaskan and Hawaiian population. He also raised eyebrows when he warned against the war in Iraq and condemned it as a "crime against humanity". His articles on Guantanamo (including in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law) earned him much opprobrium, and his position with regard to the right of self-determination of the Catalans and the right of the Venezuelans to choose their form of government gave rise to threats, insults, including in Facebook and Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 22 January 2020
the bot reverted edits that are prima vista legitimate and added value

Zayas has a blog "Human Rights Corner" with more than 20,000 followers

this is relevant for the Wiki article

https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com/

he is also the editor-in-chief of the United Nations Society of Writers' literary journal Ex Tempore, which has its own website

this would also appear to be relevant

http://www.extempore.ch/

as far as the deletions of articles, maybe the editors consider that these additions are unnecessary, but they are certainly not spam. However, the entry is already pretty long !

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senecaminor (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 30-JAN-2020

 * The direction that "This would appear to be relevant" does not describe what information should be added nor does it describe where it should be added. Thus, it is not known what changes are requested to be made.
 * Please state your desired changes in the form of "Change x to y using z".

 Example edit request:  Please change: to read as: using as a reference:
 * The Sun's diameter is 25 miles.
 * The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles.

Regards, Spintendo  09:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed. The COI editor is also reminded of the need to sign all talk page posts using four tildes.

The deletion by User:Hegsareta has not been justified. the deleted material is necessary to understand the mission of the UN Independent Expert to Venezuela and the various reactions that it elicited. The internet is full of positive (Professor Dan Kovalik, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, economist Joe Emersberger, etc.) and negative reactions (PROVEA and others). It would be unbalanced to print only the critical voices, bearing in mind that Venezuelan ngo's with consultative status like Fundalatin and the "Grupo Sures" (that represents some 50 other Venezuelan ngo's) welcomed the report in the Human Rights Council in September 2018. the article already has too many links, but the editors may consider adding these, both by Professor Kovalik: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americans-must-hear-the-other-hopeful-side-of-the_b_5a3a77aae4b06cd2bd03d6cb https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/13/us-press-reaches-all-time-low-on-venezuela-coverage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senecaminor (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen Hegsareta's comment on a possible conflict of interest. Why does he/she suspect COI? Not every Wiki user writes about every topic, especially new users like myself. Thus far I have written about Assange, Snowden, Garzon and Zayas. I have added some links and endeavoured to make the articles more balanced. The previous Wiki section on the expert's visit to Venezuela was woefully incomplete. Anyone who has taken the time to read the report and its annexes knows that the expert spoke with the oposition, members of the National Assembly, the Chamber of Commerce and opposition ngo's. The text of the report and footnotes incorporate the documents and views of opposition, government and ngo's. The source given in the earlier version of the article is El Carabibeño, a regional newspaper from central Venezuela -- not necessarily a very reliable source to reflect what may or may not have happened in the HR Council on 10 November. It is a bit weak, but should stay. By contrast, the section which Hegsareta had deleted -- with links to Professors Sachs, Weisbrot, Kovalik, Emersberger seems to be better sourced, and in any event reflects views that were missing in the article. Senecaminor (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A major deletion has been made by user 186.167.248.38 -- alleging "whitewashing" by another user. It would seem more constructive to explain what additions can be deemed "whitewashing" and unworthy of being included in Wikipedia. I have looked at the additions and do not see what could be wrong with them, bearing in mind that thy are factual and properly sourced. 186.167.248.38 should first discuss on the talk page what he/she intends to delete and why. Otherwise this may be considered a form of vandalism and a disservice to Wiki users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senecaminor (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I double-checked the newspaper allegation by reading the original statement in the source of the office of the High Commissioner for human rights. Newspapers frequently write "fake news" for purposes of smearing/defaming an individual. Wikipedia must not repeat the defamation. As indicated at the top of the editing page, the rule is: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy... Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; that is exactly what we have here. Moreover " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous" undoubtedly what the newspaper did was to completely distort an essay written by Zayas and published on the website of the OHCHR.  By double-checking the original it is clear that Zayas did not say what the Newspaper claims he said.  Had he said the Human Rights office would not have posted the essay on its site.  Besides, there was no other follow-up to the smear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

One user has removed important information, properly sourced, by prominent Professors of law, including Professor Dan Kovalik of the University of Pittsburgh, and deleted quotes from the President of the oldest independent Venezuelan human rights non governmental organization Fundalatin, without explaining the deletion. Further down a derogatory quotation is included, and the source is an opposition non-governmental association committed to regime change. It is ridiculous to pretend that "the mission was not prepared according to independence standards" -- according to whom one may ask? According to OHCHR? the Human Rights Council? This is a ridiiculous statement, because if the mission had not satisfied the OHCHR requiremets, the report would obviously not have been issued. The statement of Mr. Daniels appears to be a gratuitous smear aimed at weakening the credibility and independence of the rapporteur -- Like all UN missions, the Venezuela mission was prepared by the OHCHR with the active support of UNDP and other UN agencies in Caracas, as reflected in Annex I to the report. Besides, the source given is not a substantive source -- i.e. an official report or even an article in any of the major anti-government Venezuelan newspapers in Caracas, but a news item in a regional Venezuelan newspaper -- El Carabonero -- a source that should be deprecated as not reliable.