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}}

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:

• 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 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" ([1]; 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" [2]. 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 [3], 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:

1. Zayas accepting an award from an organization which IS in fact associated with historical revisionism
2. Zayas being called "controversial" and "extremist" by several sources, as well as discussed in an article on "relativizing Nazi crimes".
3. Zayas being extremely popular with various neo-Nazi and other extremist organizations.
4. 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, wikipedia: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)