Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

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 • 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)

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 • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Removing controversy section as undue weight

Some of it is not returning. It is only trivia and seems to be attempting to add negativity to the BLP such as;

"In 2012, when Zayas was appointed as an independent expert by the Human Rights Council, the NGO UN Watch reported several of his controversial comments.[134] For example, they noted he had described the Nuremberg trials a "Pharisee tribunal".[135]".

--Mark Miller (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Black face accusation requires multiple secondary sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Professor de Zayas is not "close" to the AfD in Germany as stated in the third paragraph of Activism. He is an expert who has been invited to join as an expert the scientific advisory board of an independent foundation that is neither financed nor run by the AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

t seems that this article has been vandalized by a group of Zayas-bashers, who do not like his message and scrape the barrel in search of anything that might sound negative and which might reduce the credibility of the reaearch performed or the methodology utilized to arrive at conclusions. These vandals blithely ignore the brilliant reviews in professional journals including the American Journal of International Law, Cambrige Law Journal, Netherlands International Law Review, Historische Zeitschrift, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, Politische Studien etc.. They ignore the fact that very prominent and knowledgeable people have written the prefaces of his books, among them Eisenhowers political Advisor, Ambassador Robert Murphy, Professor Howard Levie, Professor Charles Barber, Professor Ralph Freedman, Professor Karl Doehring. What is evident is that Zayas has broken many taboos. That is why he has been accused of being right wing ( because of his publications on the expulsion of the Germans 1944-1948) or extreme left (because of his work on indigenous peoples, Hawaii, Venezuela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) — CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the article in the Israeli newspaper completely distorts the views of the Special Rapporteur, published on the ohchr website 20 November 2015. He never said what the newspaper claims. Nor was he "condemned" by any responsible institution. The newspaper article is a political smear and incompatible with Wikipedia defamation rules. https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/terrorism-in-an-age-of-asymmetries/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

User Buidhe unjustifiably deleted an important review in a professional human rights journal and added a review by a relatively unknown German historian, who evidently did not read the book carefully, since, as the review in Hebrew University's "Genocide Prevention Now" documents, Zayas is well aware of the books by Longerich et al, discusses them and explains why he rejects their generalizations and fallacies of anachronism and lack of representativeness.

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".

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

  Specification requested  

• 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".

Change x to y using z

x A verbatim description of the old text to be removed from the article (if any) y A verbatim description of the new text to be added to the article (if any) z A reference which verifies the requested change Example edit request: Please change: The Sun's diameter is 25 miles. ↑ This is x ↑ to read as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles. ↑ This is y ↑ using as a reference: Harinath, Prisha (2020). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. ↑ This is z ↑

• 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.
  

Regards,  Spintendo  09:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes

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.

Problematic edits

This revert by CubaHavana2018, who may have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, restores mentions of: two articles in The Canary (website) (considered a generally unreliable site by Wikipedia[1][2]) by "Canadian economist Joe Emersberger" (note Joe Emersberger is probably not notable, and is better described as a blogger than an economist)[3] which does mention de Zayas; an article by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies in Common Dreams[4] which mentions De Zayas merely in passing in one paragraph; and "Professor Dan Kovalik" (not actually a Professor[5]) in the fringe publication Counterpunch[6] which barely mentions De Zayas. The edit summary was "The voices of the economist Professor Dan Kovalik of the University of Pittsburgh or the economist Joe Emerberger are important voices that must not be deleted by Bobfombockery". I would argue that these are not noteworthy in any way in relation to the subject of this article. I am planning to delete again. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It was entirely justified for CubaHavana to restore the published opinions of Professor Dan Kovalik and Canadian economist Joe Emersberger. Both articles are substantive and well sourced and far more noteworthy than the defamatory and ludicrous statement by an anti-Maduro activist published apparently only in a provincial newspaper in Venezuela - El Carabonero, an oppostion newspaper. Why was it not published in El Nacional or El Universal, center-right newspapers with the largest circulation in Venezuela? The claim that the mission was not prepared according to OHCHR standards is totally out of the blue -- that kind of judgment can be made only by OHCHR or by the Human Rights Council itself. Every report that has the UN imprimatur must satisfy strict standards. In any event, The statement in El Carabonero is not noteworthy. With his additions and deletions Bobfrombockley may be apporoaching vandalism. Why try to disqualify Kovalik, who has written many books. The Wikipedia article on him corroborates that he teaches at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kovalik Senecaminor (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Professor Dan Kovalik and economist Joe Emerberger are credible voices that have offered neutral and impartial views regarding the adverse socio-economic situation in Venezuela. They are renowned experts in their respective fields. It is imperative that these sources are kept on the page so as to offer a balanced view of the discussions that emerged prior to, during and in the aftermath of the visit of Professor de Zayas, in his previous capacity as UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, to Venezuela. It is totally absurd that Bobfrombrockley attempts to vandalize the Alfred de Zayas Wikipedia page by removing credible sources on a regular basis. The Alfred de Zayas Wikipedia page should be protected from further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see the critical material has now been removed by Senecaminor, with the justification that it is sourced to a "regional newspaper". Wikipedia does not have a policy that regional newspapers are inappropriate sources. We could will ask the RSN whether this particular one is considered a reliable source or not, but I notice there are multiple possible other sources for the deleted material, so will look at the possible sources first.

To accuse me of vandalism for attempting to make this article more encyclopedic is very much against the spirit of the project.

You both refer to Joe Emergberger as an economist, but that doesn't seem to be the case; he does not describe himself as such. The Canary is not a creidble source, as the RSN has concluded twice, as I showed in my links above. Kovalick - who, again, is misdescribed as a "professor", which he isn't (as I already showed above) does not actually talk about the report, but mentions it in passing. It is not appropriate to include in this article every single source which mentions its subject in passing - see [[[WP:DUE]]. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)