User talk:200.44.90.240

Dear User,

You have deleted several useful additions to the article, which reflect the activities of Alfred de Zayas as UN Independent Expert -- in fact, the article was somewhat out-of-date and did not take into account important activities of the I.E. over the past four years. However, you have reverted to a very very recent version of the article which introduced clear defamation against the I.E. This defamation goes back to a ludicrous article published in 2012 by a notorious organization called UN Watch, which instead of exposing corruption in the United Nations or doing constructive work on behalf of human rights, focuses its activities on lobbying for two countries, defending the indefensible, and defaming independent United Nations High Commissioners like Navi Pillay, Louise Arbour and Mary Robinson, UN staffers like the secretary of the Human Rights Council, Eric Tistounet, and numerous rapporteurs including Professors John Dugard, Jean Ziegler, Olivier de Schutter, William Schabas, Richard Goldstone, Idriss Jazairy, Michael Lynk and de Zayas. There is no problem with legitimate criticism of the reports submitted by any of the above, but to suggest that any of them is "anti-semitic", a "Nazi", a "proto-Nazi", a "crypto-Nazi" or a "hero of Holocaust deniers" is unacceptable and prohibited by Wikipedia's own rules concerning biographies of living persons. These are highly defamatory charges that would require a high threshold of proof -- the Wikipedia cannot just repeat whatever absurdities appear in the media or in blogs. To establish that a person is a "hero of Holocaust deniers", UN Watch would have to show that the I.E. has attended meetings of Holocaust deniers, has spoken at their conferences, favourably cited their publications, accepted an award by them. A substantial and verifiable connection must be shown. If Wikipedia had double-checked the electronic link offered by UN Watch in its blog, it would have seen that it does not in any way support the allegation that the I.E. is anybody's "hero". The books by the I.E. have received recognition in most scholarly journals including the American Journal of International Law, the Cambridge Law Journal, the Netherlands International Law Review, etc. If someone wants to introduce criticism of the I.E.'s books, the criticism should emanate from a credible source, not from a lobbying organization that no one takes seriously. No problem disagreeing with the I.E. on Nuremberg and the International Criminal Court, but the critic must not quote out of context and distort the nuanced position, e.g. in the chapter by deZ in the Cambridge Companion to International Criminal Law or in his numerous articles in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights, or Macmillan Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Wikipedia owes it to its readers to double-check, what users contribute. Not every contribution is worthy of an Encyclopedia entry. The article does deserve protection -- but not from those who add up-to-date, reliable information, but from those who add defamation. If the article is closed for editing, the version should be the last version prior to the defamatory addition of end April.