Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

A fine dissertation

I just saw the fine dissertation by Colm Kelly, which relies heavily on Zayas' research. It illustrates that the report is receiving increasing academic recognition.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Swedish talk and student essay

I cannot understand why Bobfrombrockery deletes this section, which shows that the report is taken seriously by a noted Swedish university, which then publishes a summary of the lecture in its magazine, and then a masters' student writes his masters thesis inspired on the lecture itself. Sure, it is primary sources, but more important than some of the unqualified comments of the report by political critics — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This comment presumably relates to this edit (reverted here). A single speech at a university - not reported anywhere but verified via an article in a student magazine written by de Zayas which does even not mention the speech - is surely not by any definition noteworthy. A student writing a dissertation on a subject de Zayas has written about and mentioning de Zayas in the dissertation is surely not by any definition noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Neither that de Zayas has held lecture at a Swedish university nor that a student has written a thesis referencing him is in any way noteworthy. ImTheIP (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

This is the text as removed by CubaHavana when leaving this comment: He is close to the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany, for instance joining the board of trustees of their ""Desiderius Erasmus Foundation" think tank in 2018 and speaking to their parliamentary group in 2019 on the dangers of "globalism". Do editors think this is improperly sourced or undue? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC) I have restored the bit about the Foundation, as this is adequately sourced to multiple reliable sources, but left the rest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User Noonicarus deleted an important information paragraph concerning subsequent developments and the call by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other rapporteurs for the lifting of sanctions as proposed by Zayas. Most importantly, it should be added that the 2-week mission by UN Rapporteur Douhan in February 2021 fully confirms the Zayas findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be original research and synthesis for us to write, in our voice, that Douhan's report confirmed Zayas'. We need to rely on reliable sources and not go beyond them.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In the light of the February 2021 mission to Venezuela by UN Rapporteur Alena Douhan, who spent 12 days on the ground interviewing stakeholders across the board, the early assessment by Ms Raffalli seems ridiculous and not worthy of the Wikipedia. It is important to note that none of the 4 rapporteurs mentioned by Raffalli were ever in Venezuela, and that the newest assessment by Douhan confirms the findings of Zayas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubaHavana2018 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Raffalli comments are reported in multiple reliable sources and are therefdore DUE. The Douhan report is irrelevant unless reliable sources draw the connection. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Developments regarding de Zayas and Xinjiang

Hi everyone, Just recently, Mr. de Zayas has come out in support of the Chinese Government's line on Xinjiang , . There's a section on his opinions on Venezuela on here already, so I think his views on Xinjiang are worth a section. Since the article is locked, I can't do this, but it's important to keep this article up-to-date so I hope someone else can do it.Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If our only sources are his Twitter and Chinese state media, I'm not sure it has due weight (although there is a lot in the article that is also not noteworthy based on independent secondary mentions) but it is definitely worth monitoring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The twitter post from de Zayas' personal twitter links to his personal Medium, onto which the Xinhua article is pasted. In fact, de Zayas has posted another article regarding his position onto said Medium. Considering that he's amplifying his view on personal channels I'd think it's grounds for an edit into this article. Of course I'm not an expert XD. Would we need sources other than de Zayas himself and Chinese state media?Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely not against a mention (I feel the current article contains a lot of non-noteworthy stuff, and this seems more important), just worried about sourcing: his Twitter and Medium are reliable for facts about him, but primary sources, so do not indicate noteworthiness. China Daily's reliability is considered as follows: There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily. I'd personally feel more comfortable waiting for secondary coverage, but won't stand in the way! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The same story appeared in other Chinese media. CounterPunch published an article by de Zayas and Richard Falk in April. Burrobert (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

changing the invalid issn Asdvfasdfvwerbtewrbtewrbter (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)