Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

{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)

{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas/Archive index |mask=Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}

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[1] 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#Early_life).

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: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. 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))

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945

The masterpiece - The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945 and its Talk page. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

the event was attended by the Minister of Culture of Baden Wuerttemberg Rech and by the Governor of BW Oettinger

This is a Wikipedia, not a society chronicle.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody disagrees with you Xx236 on the issue of a society chronicle. But it is not unsignificant that the Governor or Baden Wuerttemberg and the Culture Minister attended the award ceremony for Zayas. Of course it can be deleted, if you wish. The article is already pretty long. However, as to KarlV, there is no dispute to be resolved here and no justification for the POV or neutrality warnings. Indeed, there are few Wikipedia articles with as many solid sources and footnotes as this one. See also the French and Spanish wiki articles on Zayas. As far as the mention of Wolfgang Benz -- well, he is among the minority of German historians who feel uncomfortable with the subject matter of the expulsion of the Germans after WWII and who dislikes the fact that de Zayas has written about it objectively without making concessions to the Zeitgeist. As has been noted above, the 14th revised edition of Die Nemesis von Potsdam had a brilliant review in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, with which KarlV probably disagrees. But such a discussion should be carried out in the wiki article "expulsion of Germans" and not here. I thoroughly agree with the comment made by 81.63.100.17. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you guys shoot fast! The message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary" -- was complied with. I did explain the removal of "warnings" that have no justification. It is incumbent on the person who adds the warning to explain why he is adding the warning. The comments of KarlV and Xx236 do not justify it at all.193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification for the POV or the neutrality warning. This article is well written and has more footnotes than I can count! Whoever has a problem with it should first justify himself on the discussion page.Raymond Lohne, Ph.D., Columbia College Chicago67.184.223.103 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Lohne. These labels seem to be an indirect way of questioning the credibility of Professor de Zayas. As a senior lawyer with the UN and author of recognized scholarly handbooks, de Zayas enjoys an impecable reputation. Therefore the POV and neutrality labels in this article seem out of place. I have also added a most interesting document I found on the law/history section of the Zayas website - the final report on the project of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft that he directed 1975-79 in Göttingen. Fascinating and full of information that is not in the article yet. The report is, of course, in German. http://www.alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/dfgschlussbericht 85.0.19.214 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2011 dispute

Could someone please list the factual items that are in dispute in this article? A checklist... Say, the five top things:

• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.
• 5.

Top five problems

• 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.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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 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.