This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations: United Nations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Ruggles’ Supposed Sovereignty “Expert” Has A Troubling Past, Hawai'i Free Press Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [reply]

I have attempted to include the following de Zayas excerpt from his memorandum found at https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf and quoted in the Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/29/hawaii-politician-jennifer-ruggles-sovereign-country:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, publishing a legal memorandum that states: "I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)."

However, this excerpt has been repeatedly removed from his wikipedia page. I cleaned up my introduction and summary leading into his excerpt- however my edit was still removed. I am simply quoting his work- this is not my personal opinion. Please advise. (SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

This content does not belong in the lead section of the article, because the purpose of that section is to summarize the body of the article. "Advocacy" is a better section. The quote is excessively long in the context of this biography, since this person is involved with many, many issues other than Hawai'i and we don't have lengthy quotes from him on those other issues. Hawaiiankingdom.org is not a reliable source for general use on Wikipedia because it is an advocacy website. Also, de Zayas is no longer the UN independent expert. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom: It's OK to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles; however, if you're "improvement" is undone or reverted by another editor who leaves an edit summary indicating something other than being a case of clear-cut vandalism, then you are obligated to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion on the article's talk page to try and establish a consensus for inclusion. You shouldn't simply keep trying to add the content over and over again because this is likely going to be seen a edit warring. Now, regarding this particular quote, I tend to agree with Cullen328 in that it might be possible to mention something about this in a neutrally worded sentence about Hawaii, but the long quote seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia articles are not really the place to right great wrongs and not every thing Zayas has said or done needs to be mentioned. So, maybe a shortened version of what the Guardian wrote would be better suited for this article or even better perhaps in Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Finally, I also agree that hawaiiankingdom.org is not a reliable source for Wikipedia pruposes. Anyway, I've hid the content for the time being until a consensus can be established for its inclusion. I've also posted a {{Please see}} at WT:HAWAII to let that WikiProject know about the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am happy to continue the discussion to reach a consensus. However, I have some disagreement with the points you and Cullen make about my sourcing/citing. The hawaiiankingdom.org website provides the PDF of the de Zayas memorandum. Its an official document written by de Zayas and therefore I see no relevance in discussing the websites legitimacy, because they are simply providing the original source document. Also, I cited the guardian article as well, however it is unclear to me why the guardian is a legitimate source of information while hawaiiankingdom.org is not. All media representations are partial, partisan and problematic, how do you deal with inherent human bias? Meanwhile I cited the original source document of the de Zayas excerpt I provided. The de Zayas Wikipedia page is about him, and therefore sharing excerpts of his writing to describe a significant conversation that he has contributed much to, seems quite relevant and unbiased in the sense of reporting on it. Especially when the reporting content is mostly just his excerpt being posted to his page, again about a significant event that he has deeply impacted.

In addition, there is inconsistency when we look at what is allowed on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement page contrasting my edit on the Alfred de Zayas page. For example, there is no citation at the end of this paragraph, and the statement is important, because it is a falsification of Hawaiian history as I know from historian Ron Williams, PHD, who works at the Hawaii State Archives, and specializes in the history of the Home Rule Party. He tells us that the political party known as the Home Rule Party supported and successfully passed a great deal of legislation, all of which was vetoed by the American installed territory governor. In addition describing the party as radical compared to the Democratic Party of Hawaii is also exaggerative opinionated writing. Regardless this biased version of history also has no citation:

Home Rule Party of Hawaii

Main article: Home Rule Party of Hawaii

Following the annexation of Hawaii, Wilcox formed the Home Rule Party of Hawaii on June 6, 1900. The Party was generally more radical than the Democratic Party of Hawaii. They were able to dominate the Territorial Legislature between 1900 and 1902. But due to their radical and extreme philosophy of Hawaiian nationalism, infighting was prominent. This, in addition to their refusal to work with other parties, meant that they were unable to pass any legislation. Following the election of 1902 they steadily declined until they disbanded in 1912.[citation needed] SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the document should be treated as a primary source which means that it needs to be used carefully, and any interpretation of the document is going to need to come from reliable secondary sources, which I don't think hawaiiankingdom.com qualifies as and is what I meant by it being non-reliable. I apologize if I wasn't clear about that. All sources are biased to some degree as explained in WP:BIASED, but Wikipedia limits us to using only those which are condsidered to be reliable. Personally, I'm not exactly sure the Guardian would be a reliable source in this particular context for anything but the quote itself, but major newspapers are generally considered have in place fairly strong editorial controls and do fact checking of what they publish, and it seems unlikely that as a major newpspaper would knowingly misquote something or link to a doctored or otherwise altered pdf file. So, it would be better to find an official UN source for the document than a convenience link if you want to cite it and then a reliable secondary source for any interpretation of it. Then, there would still be the question of whether adding all the content you're proposing would be WP:UNDUE in comparison to the other content in that particular section.

As for the other articles you mentioned, those articles may indeed have problems and those should be addressed on their article talk pages; that, however, doesn't necessarily mean their mistakes should be repeated in this article. Perhaps some members from WP:HAWAII will be more familiar with the subject matter and be able to provide more specific feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [reply]

I've been trying to make this article somewhat more encyclopedic, as it has been tagged for a while with multiple issues. So far, I don't think I've done anything overly bold, but edit, in which I removed material (citing primary sources) mentioning various side panels and minor writing that he's done, might be worth others' checking in case I'm going too far. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I'm also not sure if encyclopedia entries and the like are noteworthy enough to include in a bibliography, so if anyone could look at this section with an eye to de-cluttering that would be good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred-Maurice_de_Zayas#Articles_and_chapters BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [reply]

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. [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 !