Jump to content

Talk:David Littman (activist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources

Sources:

--tickle me 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Historian

User:Canadian Monkey has been repeatedly restoring the description of David Littman as a historian to this article, with references to articles from the Middle East Quarterly and the National Review. Both of these are partisan publications whose interests are served by puffing up the credentials of those, like David Littman, who share their views. The Middle East Quarterly is a publication of the Middle East Forum, which describes itself with

The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America.
MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.
Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public.

Among its activities are Campus Watch, which is an organization that identifies academics who teach perspectives on the Middle East that disagree with those of the MEF, and "affirms its right to critique teachers, instructors, and professors at any point in their careers based on professors' publications, statements, and teaching," something it apparently does in part by maintaining an extensive mailing list. As I write this, their homepage has apparently decided that it is time to "critique" Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University, who is named in the titles of four of its ten featured "The Latest on Campus" articles. Prof. Esposito is highlighted for two matters: his recent book, "Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think;" and for accepting, as the director of Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, $20 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, after whom the center was renamed with the receipt of his gift in 2005.

In short, the Middle East Forum is not an organization primarily concerned with scholarship; its primary concern is with affecting perception and ultimately policy in a pre-determined way.

The National Review describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion," and it is well-known for promoting and advancing particular political agendas.

Basically, both of these publications are interested in portraying any of the authors whom they publish - and they will only publish authors whose views are consistent with their own - as being as authoritative as possible. That the Middle East Quarterly and the National Review have called Littman "a historian" does not make him one. As noted at WP:Reliable Sources/Extremist and fringe sources, "Articles using such (extremist) sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." The National Review, for example, might very well write that Barak Obama is a "terrorist sympathizer" - does that meant that Barak Obama can be described as a "terrorist sympathizer" in his article? Of course not. The article might include a statement that the National Review has called Obama a terrorist sympathizer, but that's it. So it is that Littman cannot be called a "historian" without any qualification.

Anyway, if you look at all at what Littman has done in his life, it is pretty clear that any historical writing he has done has been marginal to his main occupation and interest, which is human rights activism. Research before you revert, Monkey.

And, Monkey, if I don't get a response more thoughtful from you than what you've supplied in the past, I think this dispute will have to go to the next level.

Tegwarrior (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not "been repeatedly restoring" anything - I've made exactly one edit to the article page up till now. You, on the other hand, have changed the long standing consensus describing him as an historian, and have removed that designation, using flimsy premises, FOUR times, edit warring with User:Beit Or, and now with myself, over it. It is quite clear that your position does not have consensus, so please stop your edit warring. If you wish, take it to the next step in WP:DR. As to your arguments: TNR and MEQ may have political biases, but that does not make them extremist nor fringe sources. Being Republican or "conservative" is not an extremist nor a fringe position. On Wikipedia, and especially on BLPs, we describe people as reliable sources describe them, and both those sources are reliable ones, even though they may have a political agenda. Please do not remove the designation of historian agian, unless you have consensus for such a change, and do not remove sourced material.
I am not opposed to the renaming of the article to David Littman (human rights activist) - but please get consensus for that change first. As WP:MOVE says, "Move wars" are highly unproductive, and leave vast numbers of pointless redirects littering the place, which some poor soul will have to fix. Since there has laready been opposition to your page move, it is obvious that it is a controversial move, and you should follow the procedure outlined here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I've taken a look, Monkey, and I think every single historical publication of David Littman, prior to his becoming the darling of the National Review and MEMRI and the like, is from a vanity press or republisher (i.e., a printing company that will, at your request and expense, print a prior publication that you have the rights to). I was thinking the "The Century of Moses Montefiore" (Oxford University Press, after all!) might be an exception, but then I looked at the Amazon page for that work: the book was sponsored by the Library his brother founded.
Frankly, it looks to me that on most accounts, David Littman is an all right guy. Human rights activist and all. It's too bad I'm going to have to eviscerate a lot of his credibility here, just because you insist on calling him a historian.
Tegwarrior (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think you are here to 'eviscerate a lot of his credibility' because of something I've done, I strongly suggest you review WP:BLP as well as WP:POINT. You are editng in an inappropriate way. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You've tried to build up some false credibility for him; I'm just clarifying the facts. That the facts don't speak well of him as a "historian" - something I don't think he has ever seriously claimed to be - maybe it would be better for WP:BLP as well as WP:POINT purposes that the sham of making him out to be a historian be dropped. But if he is to be a historian, then he must be judged as a historian. Tegwarrior (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I did nothing more than refer to him as he has referred to himself here, and as reliable sources have referred to him, here, here, here, and here. You have taken offence at him being called an ‘historian’ because you mistakenly believe that only someone with a Ph.D. in History can be called that. I respect that POV, but it is not the standard used today on Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to start a thread, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, and argue for your position, and if it is accepted as WP policy or guideline, I will be more than happy to adhere to it, on this article and others. Until such time, you may not add contentious information based on original research to a WP:BLP, in a self-professed attempt to “eviscerate a lot of his credibility”. If you continue to do that – you will be blocked. Neither you, nor any other Wikipedia editor is here to “judge” Littman, or anyone else – we simply report what other have said about him, and describe him as reliable sources have described him. I cannot make this any simpler – if you continue to insert your original research into this biography in an attempt to discredit the subject, you will leave me no choice but to report your behavior. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

> he must be judged as a historian
Teg, encyclopedically, he has to be *described* as historian, including merits and demerits, if any. Else, the article presents him as "a British historian[1] and human rights activist" presenting the latter in detail, which should cover issues. All: blogs are not WP:V#Reliable_sources, so typepad, blogspot, or unaviaxoriana.it are not citable here. --tickle me 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this page back to David Littman (historian). There are at least two reliable sources that call him an historian rather than a human rights activist. In addition, this is how Littman refers to himself: "an historian and a human rights activist at the United Nations (Geneva) since 1986"[1]; i.e., hisorian first, human rights activist second. Beit Or 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From BLP/N

This edit Littman's amateur historical writings have been published in the non-academic niche periodical is unacceptable OR and a violation of WP:BLP. If there is further disruption, editors involved may temporarily lose their editing privileges. See this as a friendly warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Work for Mossad

His involvment with Mossad in Operation Mural, which occurred in 1961 in Marrocco, is well sourced by the refs given, which point to drzzinfo, a news website strongly in favour with Israel foreign politics. There are videos and photos of the event, on top of it.

The same for his relations with some far-right belgian politicians. Look sad, but that's it. There is no BLP violation here. Thanks. TwoHorned (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add without clear consensus either here or at the noticeboard, weakly cited controversial content as regards living people, there is a thread opened at the BLP noticeboard regarding this issue, your comments are welcome there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


"Historian"

I disagree with the qualification "historian", only poorly sourced by think-tanks articles like MEQ or his wife's site... He has no publications in peer-reviewd journals, no university accreditation... Clearly he is not an historian. I'm waiting for discussion before making the changes. TwoHorned (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussiom above appears to assert that he can be reffered to as a historian. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion was only a poor-sourcing by sources I find dubious: MEQ is not a scholarly historian review, nor is his wife's site. Clearly he is not an historian: no publications, no academic function... And his ,main activity nowadays are in NGOs. TwoHorned (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say as the expression is in the title, if it is disputed then it should go for wider community debate. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There we go. I question the sources given for calling him an "historian": MEQ ?, his wife's site ? No way. He has no publications, no academic involvement... TwoHorned (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reinsertion of the mossad claim

This has been inserted....David Littman and his wife were also pivotal Mossad instruments in the Mossad-mounted "Operation Mural" which occured in Marocco in 1961. http://www.dhimmitude.org/littman-biography.html . Looking at the link there appears to be no mention of mossad am I missing somethng. Off2riorob (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, to sum up

I question:

  • his qualifications as an "historian": poorly sourced by partisan and non-academic sources: his wife's website and publications like QED are not valid. Does he even have a PhD ? In what university is he working ? What are his peer-reviewd contributions ?
  • why to discard his participation to Counter Jihad, as it's referenced here: [2] and his name ans contribs as an "expert" are expressely written.

I won't edit this time, but I think that above users have over-charged me without discussing. TwoHorned (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability

All the sources for this article seem to be connected to the subject: an article by him, his wife's personal website, his publisher's blurb on Amazon and his personal webite.

Can someone offer an explanation as to why he is not a non-notable author? --FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure but the article has been here since feb 2006, are you going to afd it? Off2riorob (talk)
I think I will unless someone gives a good defence of it. It seems to be causing unhealthy bother. --FormerIP (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be normal fun and games. I think he might be notable, but not as a mossad agent or as a high profile anti jihadist. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that he may of such low notability all round that it is hard to tell what he may be most notable for. Hence the edit-warring, I'm thinking. --FormerIP (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The edit warring was a specific case that one editor has been attempting to assert that he is a mossad agent and a high profile anti jihadist. That is a single separate issue, same editor disputes his status as historian, me I don't care at all. I am only here attempting to keep weakly cited controversial content about living people out of the article, that is one of the things I like to do. if you don't think him to be notable then nominate him for AFD. and lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
At the moment I only suspect that. Maybe this is just a poor-cited article about a perfectly notable writer. The Mossad stuff shouldn't be included, but its hard to say that without also noting that everything else in the article is also questionable in terms of WP:RS. --FormerIP (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, i'm hearing that, one of the things that I have noticed lately that for some of these cats of people the levels for asserting notably seems very low, one book written and your wiki notable, a political party with 78 votes in a local election, in. A so called historian .. with some not very notable books? Is the article of any value to readers seeking information? Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Off2riorob and FormerIP. This might be a good time for an AfD debate. I reported TwoHorned for edit warring and WP:BLP violation (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring), but notability of the article itself is of course a separate issue. -- Heptor talk 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


He is not notable as an historian: he has no academic carreer and achievements in history. He is labelled as "historian" by partisan and non-academic journals emanating from think-tanks like MEQ. His most notable actions are:

  • Operation Mural, related to Mossad,
  • NGOs in Geneva
  • Participation, along with his wife, of "anti-islamization" campaigns like Counter Jihad. I still don't understand why his official involvement in Counter Jihad at the Brussels conf is not worth of mentionning. May be not in the intro, but surely somewhere. TwoHorned (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
TwoHorned. What's being discussed it whether the article should maybe be nominated for deletion altogether on the grounds that Littman is not a noteworthy enough figure to have his own Wikipedia article. Regardless of what you think should or shouldn't be in the article, what do you think of this proposal? --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. TwoHorned (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Littman (historian). Please comment there if you wish to. --FormerIP (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Todays desired addition...

David Littman is also involved (as "expert") in the "counter jihad" organization and set of conferences, which gathers european right-wing activists, such as Filip Dewinter from Vlaams Belang and neo-conservative milieux to oppose an alleged "islamisation of Europe". ... appears a bit fluffy and vague to me Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

one, involved? very fluffy and vague...as an expert in what way is he an expert and an expert in what exactly?
two, the comment as it is phrased makes it appear as if he is a right wing activist and the list of names identifies as if he is one of these activist, it is all assumed and associated, no detail, deliberately vague imo to imply all of these things which are not supported in the citation at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In the link Littman is only mentioned in these two comments....

Assistance was provided by many organizations and individuals over the last six months including David Littman,

and... bla bla

On October 18 and 19, over 70 organizations and individuals joined together in the European and Flemish Parliaments to create a European network of activists from 14 nations to resist the increasing Islamisation of their countries. Keynote speakers included Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia and Dhimmitude and Robert Spencer, author of Religion of Peace, Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t. Additional speakers included David Littman, Dr. Arieh Eldad, member

The comment coatracks the counter jihad organisation on to him asserting he has a large part in it, this assertion and your comment is not supported by this content in the citation, it says that he was one of many people that 'assisted but does not explain his assistance. you comment also implies that Littman is a right wing activist which is not cited at all, you imply this by saying he is an involved expert in a organization of right wing activists, the whole sentence imo asserts and implies things that are not in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

to categorize filip de winter and his party as right wing is fair, i think. it's also NPOV to characterize other participants of this network the way it is done in the added text. and yes, littman has, according to the source, provided assistance to "counterjihad". so whats the problem? if you don't agree on the wording, try to rewrite it, instead of deleting it once again.--Severino (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Severino. More generally it's a sourced fact that Vlaams Belang is an offspring of the now banned (for racism) Vlaams Blok, a far-right separatist party in Belgium which is violently xenophobic. Second, "involved" is referred by the link to the counterjihad conference and web site, where the Littmans are expressely mentionned as "experts", and there is even a reproduction of the intervention done by Bat Ye'or. The "experts" gather well-known figures of far-right personalities, like Filip Dewinter or Paul Belien (see here). The only thing I say in the sentence is that the Littman are participating so such a conferecne and are regular "experts", according to the website, to this organization. May be we can change the wording, but I don't see any reason to discard such information. TwoHorned (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment—some serious accusations and associations seem to be thrown around here in order to create some kind of guilt by association for David Littman. Is there a reliable source for this? If not, it's a clear WP:BLP violation, which can be removed without discussion. If Littman was a speaker at some conference and this is source, it should be stated, not that he is "involved" in anything. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The citation says he was a minor speaker, this is clear attachment, all you can say from the citation is that he made a minor speech at some conference, the rest is coatracking and assertion of a connection that is not there in the citation, I will remove anything that I see as BLP issue and imo from this citation there is really nothing of value to include. He was a minor speaker somewhere and he assisted somehow, all worthless, specifically what did he do and with who in what place? The best thing to do is if you want to add a comment regarding this then bring it here first for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
With reference to the questions I have raised above about notability, is it possible that Littman attended the conference in question mainly as an adjunct to his more notable wife? Might claims of links to the far right be more sensibly made over on her article page, where better and more diverse sourcing may be possible? --FormerIP (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's just say he is a participant and offical expert (according to the wording of the site itself) to the conference if you will, with a link to the conference. Anyone knowing a little bit around european politics will understand all the whereabouts by just seeing the web site. And, Off2riorob, no, he wasn't a minor speaker, he was a regular speaker and presented as an expert. Your constant minimizing is troublesome, to say the least. TwoHorned (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't point your accusatory finger at me, this is the only article you have been involved in for the last week, you have added accusations that were not supported at all in the citation, just bring your citation here that supports your comments and we can look at it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes Sir ! TwoHorned (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

yes it should be included that he was a speaker at this one conference and that he provided assistance to the "counterjihad"-network. that's anything but worthless information. by the way, wikipedia policy says a typical coatrack supports a particular bias instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject. this applies for both "directions": omitting and concealing (or playing down) important facts about a person doesn't help to find this balanced set of information... we also had sources here with photos from a tribute the mossad gave to him for his work (in a period in which he was officially active for a NGO, by the way) but this information was deleted by challenging the validity of the source, something which is very disputable.--Severino (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am still uncertain whether this person is sufficiently notable for EnWiki, however, I have rephrased the addition to remove quotation marks that could be construed as casting aspersion on the terms therein, the extraneous addition of Bat Yeor, who has her own article, and I have brought the websites own words as to what they are to forestall any, potentially unintentional, misrepresentation through selective quotation. As it stands here, it is dryly neutral and accurate without any connotations—subtle or otherwise. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not very complicated, just bring your desired conservatively written content with a strong supportive citation here or to the BLP noticeboard for appraisal and there will be no problem. If you want to assert contentious poorly cited content about living people you are in the wrong place.Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Avrahams addition

David Littman is one of the listed as experts at CounterJihad Europa , a website acting "as a clearinghouse for national initiatives to oppose the Islamisation of Europe, with a focus on policy initiatives, legislation, legal test cases and political activism."[5]

Expert in what?

What is his actual involvement in this group? Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea. However, the way it was written before had some negative implications. Wordpress in general is not a reliable source either, as it is a self-pyb, but this is the home site of some organization. Now is Litman's relationship with the organization notable outside of any well-poisioning? I don't know, but that is up for discussion. I'm still uncertain if we should even have an article on this person, but as long as there is one, we need to follow BLP. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Your addition was neutral written, it is hard to refer to him as an expert when we have no idea and the citation doesn't explain at all, isn't it? what is he a an expert in? Agreed also about wordpress, the whole thing is very fluffy and unexplained, I am loath to leave the he is an expert comment in when it is totally unexplained, it could be assumed that he is an expert in antijihadism and that is clearly not supported , is it? Is he an expert in anti jihadism? These are the questions that make me want to keep it out as weakly cited. I don't care if he is. but I want to see it clearly cited. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

expert for "anti-jihadism" because he works with "counterjihad"? that would imply that "vlaams belang" and the like are what they pretend to be.--Severino (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is uncited, or have you a citation?

mate that was my answer to your "guess" that he could be an "expert for anti jihad" (whatever that may be).--Severino (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should we and the readers have to guess what he is expert in or should we all assume? Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
He is an expert in the topics the organizing committee (Vlaams Belang, Vlaams Blok, Dewinter, Belien etc.) stands for. What the hell can it be ? TwoHorned (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What are those topics then? Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Go to the conf website and stop pointing your finger at me. TwoHorned (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It says,,UN and europe..but is still doesn't say what he is an expert in about europe ans the un, if you have any idea just say. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
We are not obliged to reproduce what the conf says about him. Let's just say he participated to it as an "expert", as written. Anyone will make the connection just by seeing the site. That's neutrality, no ? TwoHorned (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

unsourced?

where are the references for this paragraph:

"From 1986 to 1991, Littman was accredited to the United Nations in Geneva by the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) as its main representative at the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). In this capacity, he campaigned for the rights of Soviet Jews who were denied their requests for emigration (refuseniks). At the request of the U.S. ambassador, he accredited Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky to speak under WUPJ’s auspices on March 5, 1987, causing the Soviet delegation to leave the hall. A 1988 Special Report on the CHR, published by Harvard Law School's Human Rights Reporter, described Littman as "a byword for tenacity in the sisterhood of NGOs, deeply resented by some fellow lobbyists who are worried that he might enrage the Arabs by his attacks on Islamic calls for Jihad (holy war) [...] Littman remained convinced [on the refusenik issue] that the pressure must be maintained [...] Gorbachov may have opened the floodgates. If so a sea of Littmans is preparing to pour through.""

--Severino (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be sourced to his bio on the dhimmitude web site. Could probably be removed, or at a minimum, attributed. Los Admiralos (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

World Union for Progressive Judaism

On the AfDpage, a user has presented this source: [3]. IMO, this is the first usable source to have been presented in respect of this article.

It is from the website of World Union for Progressive Judaism, an organisation for which Littman is an activist, so I don't think it establishes notability, being too closely conencted to him (ie I still think the article should be deleted). However, I think this is an RS for *factual* claims about Littman.

I would suggest two things:

1) The material about Operation Mural and Mossad can be re-inserted, with this as its source.

2) This source casts further doubt on Littman's status as an historian. It describes his wife as an "historian", but conspicuously fails to describe him in the same way, saying instead that he is a "British citizen". Given that no source other that self-published sources and Littman's wife's website describe him as an historian, his primary claim to notability should be taken to be the one that is recorded in an actual RS - David Gerald Littman (b. July 4, 1933, London) is a British citizen who was the chief organiser of Operation Mural, which involved the smuggling of hundreds of Moroccan Jewish children to Israel in 1961.

What do people thing of these two suggestions?

BTW, a number of people have !voted "keep" over at the AfD purely on the basis that it can be demonstrated that Littman has been published. This seems to me bogus, the point being that Littman does not seem to be widely mentioned (if he is mentioned at all) in any sources not directly connected to him. However, I am not sure what to do about this. Comments would be appreciated. --FormerIP (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me the deletes which were solely based on "Poorly sourced as an "historian", "Complete lack of RS.", "He also appears to have never been cited by any other author.", are completely bogus and have been proven to be incorrect. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I am far from sure about this. No source which is independent of Littman has yet been presented that describes him as an historian. I acknowledge that he has written on historical subjects, but this does not constitute notability in the field. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You need more than one article for that. At least I understand why you try to block me. TwoHorned (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP for the inclusion. I did it a few minutes ago. TwoHorned (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Also, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#counterjihadeuropa.wordpress, I see the counter jihad web conf can be cited, I did it with neutralization. TwoHorned (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  • If you don't mind, please don't stuff things back in, there is quite a bit of disagreement regarding these additions and you would better waiting a while to see if other involved editors are in agreement. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this new addition

Seems a bit excessive, to me....... David Littman and his wife are also involved (as "experts") in the "Counter jihad" organization and set of conferences, which gathers european right-wing activists, such as Filip Dewinter from Vlaams Belang and neo-conservative milieux to oppose an alleged "islamization of Europe"http://counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com . how are they alleged to be involved in this anti jihad group? This article appears to be having some quite controversial additions recently, what is going on? Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone added the links with Counter jihad and Filip Dewinter. It was removed because of bad-sourcing. Now I'm providing a reliable source that claraly relates the Littmann to these milieux: the official CounterJihqd website dispqlys them as experts (see for instance this, presents their works and articles. So they are clearly involved with these milieux. I find it sad also, but there it is. TwoHorned (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have commented regarding these additions at the thread that was at the BLPN as I find them weakly sourced and a repeat of the previous situation where controversial claim about are living person are being asserted using weak citations. Please don't insert them unless there is some support. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I disagree. They were weakly sourced but now the source is OK. TwoHorned (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree it still looks like a weakly cited controversial claim about a living person, I suggest you take it back to one of the noticeboards if you feel it is a worthwhile addition. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The source is an official website conference that mentions him as an "expert" and reproduces his wife's "lectures". This now is valid. The previous was not sticking to Wp standards, but this one does. TwoHorned (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Mentions him as what kind of an expert? This article is about him not his wife, it is irrelevant if his wife lectures are printed there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Mentions him and his wife as "experts" (left part) and also here and this on the website for Dewinter stuff. TwoHorned (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Your repeatedly reinseting it when I object is not the way the wikipedia works, it is also not the way to get your content in the article, the wikipedia works by discussion and you would rather remove it until the discussion is done and the dispute is over. Off2riorob (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's wait for people to discuss here. But I disagree for the removing of a valid source. Another one has raised the points previously and I just provided correct sourcing. Now for the Mossad I don't have the correct source so I removed it. TwoHorned (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a WP:BLP issue. Discuss first, add afterwards. Do you have any reliable sources or not? -- Heptor talk 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No WP:BLP this time, as the new source (thisone, a new one) is a valid ref. TwoHorned (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP applies to this article, even with or without reliable sources. The link you gave is 1. not an RS, 2. does not mention Litterman. -- Heptor talk 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. It does mention it. There is no BLP violation. TwoHorned (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is about a living person. How can you possibly argue that BLP does not apply?? If it is actually violated is another issue. I believe it is, but that is a more complicated argument. -- Heptor talk 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
he said there's no BLP violation, not that BLP does not apply. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If you had been prepared to listen you would have found out peoples opinions, what is your conflict of interest here, you have been repeatedly attempting to assert for over a week now with the usage of low quality citations and sometimes even without supporting citations that this person is a mossad agent and part of some anti muslim league? Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is also not about his wife. You also seem to be implying through her connection that he is connected as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Operation Mural

Sundays addition, this site was objected to, has it been declared reliable? What does the edit summary mean? that it was mentioned at the deletion page so that means it is ok? edit summary .. (Operation Mural per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Littman_(historian)#David_Littman_.28historian.29) addition ..

He has been awarded by Israel Intelligence Heritage for his work in conjunction with the Mossad in "Operqtion Mural", which occurred in Marocco in 1961 http://wupj.org/Publications/Newsletter.asp?ContentID=266#WORLD Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This one is totally unexplained, what did he do? How was he involved and why did he get the medal? Has this whole article been cleared for use? Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a fact, we don't have to interpret. You seemed to agree with FormerIP on the use of this, so whuy do you revert now ? TwoHorned (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree on its insertion in this unexplained way.Please wait to see what other editors think.Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, this information seems to me to be the best (perhaps only) properly documented information about Littman that is available. It was previously rejected when sourced to a blog, but I think it can now be included. What is more, is seems to be more significant and better sourced than anything else in the article. On that basis, I would also suggest that it would be appropriate to change the whole slant of the article so that, instead of being about an historian (this is poorly sourced) who also did some other things, it becomes an article about a person who was involved in Operation Mural and wrote a few articles on historical subjects in later life (in a "where are they now..?" type way).
I also think that there are still insufficient sources to establish Littman's notability at all, however, so I still think the article should be deleted. Note that Operation Mural redlinks.
Rob, if you agree with the inclusion of this material but disagree with the way it has been inserted, why not improve the content rather than deleting it? --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I would first like to assertain, is this citation reliable, I am myself unsure about that and then if it is then I would want to expand the detail to explain what it is all about, so I think this has to go to the reliable source noticeboard first, do you think it is a wp reliable source? Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Expert

This has also yet again been but back, I totally object to this one for the reasons I have explained, what type of expert, no one knows...

Littman is one of the people listed as an expert at CounterJihad Europa, a website acting "as a clearinghouse for national initiatives to oppose the Islamisation of Europe, with a focus on policy initiatives, legislation, legal test cases and political activism" the conference website http://counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com/ the conference website

The site was rejected as not reliable wordpress. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at what SpikeToronto wrote about it in your SRS request: However, on a case-by-case basis, it may be that certain publications there may be acceptable, as per WP:SPS. That is, an individual essay/paper/article published at CounterJihad Europa that is from an established expert in the relevant field, notwithstanding being essentially self-published, could satisfy WP:SPS. Conversely, an individual essay/paper/article published at CounterJihad Europa by someone who is not an established expert in the relevant field would not satisfy WP:SPS. Finally, if all the writings at CounterJihad Europa are by one author, and that author is not considered an established expert in the relevant field, then the writings would not satisfy WP:SPS. — SpikeToronto 09:11, 9 January 2010 . Since you seem to establish him as an "historian" and recognized expert (which I doubt and poorly sourced) then the source can be used. TwoHorned (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That explanation would perhaps be used for something he has said there but not for the claim by the website that he is an expert, please answer for me, what are they suggesting he is he an expert in? If you disagree then take your desired addition back there to the WP:RSNB . Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There is also nothing to suggest that this websitr is a reliable source, if it is then I think the content should be expanded and explained.Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Rob here, this has in no way been cleared as an RS.
Potentially, I think it could be used as a source merely for the membership (or involvement or whatever) of Littman in the organisation in question. To do this, though, I think it would be necessary to first find a third-party RS that demonstrates that the organisation is at all significant and gives a non-biased description of its activities.
I do not think it is at all possible that source (it is a blog, after all) can be used to support an claim - even attributed - that Littman is an "expert". --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In that particular case, the source is not to be used to qualify him as an "expert", but to mention that he participated to the conference. Excuse me, but participating to a conference of this type is not something to be censored, as the conference is extremely marked on the political side. This should answer Off2riorob question. I don't understand why Off2riorob seemed to agree the source about the Mossad award, just to discard it when I mention it in the text. The point here is that I think that some people are trying to do POV pushing by censorhip. Apparently, only Off2riorob has the right to edit the article. I still think the labelling as "historiain" is not properly sourced: G2W is by no means an academic recognition. So here I go again: in what academic institution is Littman operating as historian ? No offense Off2riorob but should re-read WP:PROF. TwoHorned (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have never inseted or removed the fact that he is a historian, it has recently been cited though by another editor. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I was mentionning the Mossad award. For unknown reasons now you don't want to see it in the text. TwoHorned (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I never supported the citation, as yet there is no reliable citation, I also object to adding...He was a mossad agent without an explanation as to what his participation was. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I said "awarded by Mossad", not "Mossad agent". You were mentionning this ref a few lines above. TwoHorned (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The award is not a "Mossad award". Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite right, it's an "israeli intelligence award", in a reception with top mossad executives. Which makes a big diff. TwoHorned (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
As it relates to the POV you trying to push, that he's a "Mossad agent" or "workign for the Mossad", or "involved with the Mossad", it does make a big differnce. The award is not given by the Mossad, or to Mossad agents. The Israeli intelligence community is made up of numerous organizations, of which the Mossad is just one. The award is further given by the Israeli Intelligence heritage organization, and recognizes achievements helpful to Israel and the its causes -and is given to people who are not necessarily members of the Israeli community. Mossad functionaries were in attendance - as were functionaries of other agencies, as were sr. members of Israel's governemnt. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
He said himself that Operation Mural was planned and organized by mossad, and he played a key role in it; i agree he said he wasn't aware of working for mossad. That plus the award make the involvment. The article should mention that, it's sourced. TwoHorned (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, and I have no problem with describing it in the article - I've added a good refernce for this, feel free to add details from it into the article. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, just on a point of fact, the details of Operation Mural do appear to inlcude that he was working for Mossad. There is no reason to suppose that he is currently working for Mossad, and I don't think anyone has suggested that. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
He was in fact working for Mossad, but that was unbeknown to him. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
According to him. But i think we'll stick to WP:OR ethics. Unless there is a source. TwoHorned (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, according to the Mossad, as well. This is documented in the source I provided, read it. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry. TwoHorned (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I think his involvement in the operation, alongside his UN work for WUPJ, are his primary claims to notability. So , the operation mural stuff could probably be expanded. here's another source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1245184900369 - which credits him with developing the concept of a "collective passport", later used to facilitate mass immigration from Morocco. Also gives his Mossad codename, which may be worth a mention. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That reference is indeed a poor one, but the material can be sourced to the two other releiable sources I've provided. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Nick your understanding of what means a reliable source here is fantastic after only a new account with two days involvement. As there are other editors involved and the material has been quite hotly contested, perhaps waiting for other involved editors to have a look would be better that sticking it in and having it removed again. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it takes all that much editing experience to judge that Ha'aretz, one of Israel's most respectable newspapers is a reliable source. What problem do you have with it? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to have a good look at it, do you think all of the content can be used? Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we can safely use anything from Ha'aretz - which confirms most of the details - he was involved in Op. Mural, which was a Mossad operation . He didn't know Mossad was behind it. He helped smuggle 530 children , with the help of OSE. The only part not confirmed by Ha'haretz is the medal/award. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The other citation has been rejected, as for as this citation goes, ask about it at the RSnoticeboard as to whether the content can be used. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its fair to say the other cite was rejected at RSN. Some commenters said it was fine, other said its close to a primary source but could be used with other sources. But I don't insist we use it - we can use Ha'aretz or Jpost for the material i think needs to be here. Do you seriosuly want me to take Ha'aretz and Jpost to RSN? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You win Off2riorob, I give up. Cheers to everyone. TwoHorned (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no winner or loser, it is simply a matter of it being a living person and respecting him and getting it right. The jewish post is clearly a RS as far as I know and this content is there about littman..We couuld wait for other opinions but it looks good to use to me... this content is there...

The Mossad, with the Jewish Agency and a humanitarian children's organization, sent David Littman, a British volunteer, to Morocco. After four months of negotiations, he succeeded beyond all expectations. With Mossad contacts, Littman (code name "Mural") organized the departure of 530 Jewish children, who left legally in five convoys under the cover of "holidays in Switzerland" and from there to Israel. Operation Mural came at a decisive moment, as the innovative "collective passports" system which Littman obtained was to be used six months later for a larger emigration that succeeded with royal approval. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the Jerusalem Post, not the Jewish post. Ha'aretz has considerably more detial, which corraborates this, as well. I see you're serious about questioning the reliability of JPost and Ha'artez, so I'll take it to RSN. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not actually, the Jerusalem post looks as I said fine http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1245184900369 and the Ha'artez cite also looks fine, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935128.html Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
great. Let's figure out what to put in the article based on these 2 sources. The paragraph you suggest above (one we reword it so as not to violate copyright) is close to what I thinks needs to be there. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes agreed, reword the story so as not to violate copyright but those are the basic details, be bold and write something. Feel free to add it as we have a basic agreement and it can be tweaked . Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I also think that as it is quite a big issue as far as notability goes that when a decent write about it is added that it may well have some affect on the AFD decisions and the AFD should be notified that the biography has had an addition and ask people to look again as regards voting in the AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
yes. I may have some time to take a first stab at it later tonight. Feel free to do the same. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry there is plenty of time, I am leaving this to you though, you found the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@TwoHorned
> In that particular case, the source is not to be used to
> qualify him as an "expert", but to mention that he participated
> to the conference.
Just in case this hasn't been solved yet:

'Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections' (BLP#RS)

If the 'source' doesn't conform with RS, it doesn't matter whether qualification X or 'mention' of issue Y is aimed at. --tickle me 02:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible addition

In 1961 Littman volunteered for a mission arranged with the assistance of Mossad and a humanitarian childrens organization to assist in getting Jewish children out of Morocco , the codename for the mission was Operation Mural , after months of negotiation by Littman the children left morocco under the guise of a supposed holiday in Switzerland, in all Littman assisted in the repatriation of five hundred and thirty children immigrated to Israel. In 1986, the 25th anniversary of the operation a gathering of the children was arranged and Littman was given a certificate in recognition of his activities.[1] [2]

references

  1. ^ "Codename: Operation Mural". Haaretz.com. December 17th, 2007. Retrieved January 12th, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  2. ^ "The Moroccan connection". The Jerusalem post. June 22nd, 2009. Retrieved January 12th, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)


Looks good to me. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a good start. I'd like to see the "humanitarian childrens organization" named, if there is a source for that. And is it impolite to point out that there are some punctuation errors - commas that ought to be full-stops?
If some more good quality sources can be found, then I may have to think about voting against my own AfD. I am not sure if we are quite there yet, though. Scholarly sources would be good and, although notability within one country may still be notability, sources from outside Israel. If anyone has the time.
I still think that the other potential candidates for Littman's notability (historian, active at the UN) look unlikely to be made out. I repeat my suggestion that the article should focus mainly on Operation Mural and then mention the other stuff (which is not well-sourced at all and IMO less interesting in any case) as an endnote. Furthermore, there may be a case for restyling the article altogether under the name "Operation Mural". Thoughts on this would be welcome. --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
His UN work (and the controversy surrounding it) is easily referenced to non-Israeli sources - [4], [5],[6], [7] - and easily meets the notability standards even without any mention of Operation Mural. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Nick - I see you have started an Operation Mural article. Whilst I can see why, I think it is premature while the AfD is going on, since it's existence may strengthen the case for this article being deleted, per WP:WI1E. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, the two can both exist, each in its own right, Littman is notable for things other than Mural (see above - regarding his UN work), and Operation Mural involved much more than just his efforts, and deserves its own article (this last comment was nmade at the RSN discussion by another editor - Squidfrychef? ) Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be a matter of opinion, Nick. The normal rule, I think, would be that Littman only get's his own article if his significant notability aside from Operation Mural can be extablished, which I don't think it is at all clear. This argument gets stonger if the OM article actually exists. --FormerIP (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I belive the cites above (which are but a small selection) establish his notability beyond Mural. If the AfD decides otherwise, so be it.Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Wordpress

I hope this is the end of it. TwoHorned, please stop adding Wordpress as a source to the article. Or any other article. -- Heptor talk 21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you should remove the link and delete the blog as quickly as you can, Heptor. It isn't even funny. --FormerIP (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If you are the owner of that blog, you could be blocked for off-wiki harrasment for a stunt like this. It is not funny. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine, I deleted it... I'd maintain that it was way too silly to be offensive, but I'd rather not take it there. -- Heptor talk 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

recent additions

somebody wrote to me once that "encyclopedia articles are not current event sheets, and not every thought, word, or action by people is to be documented" ...--Severino (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality; COI; Templates

The article is taking on the appearance of an attack page with an anti muslim bias. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment here sheds light perhaps on your prior comment above. I don't think that's at all the case--the article fairly reflects what has been written about the subject of the article. It is not appropriate for you to seek to delete reflections of what the subject said because your POV differs.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove my templates, it is my right to add them in an attempt to address issues I see with the recent additions, I also have no POV at all about this person. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You are template-bombing. You've provided no basis for a COI assertion, here or elsewhere. To the contrary, you have indicated only a POV of your own, that leads you to wish to stifle reflection of sources. That's not an acceptable reason for adding a COI template. I'm entitled to remove a template that lacks basis. Please provide a basis for lack of neutrality, or that will be deleted as well. Having read the sources and the text of the article, I see no basis for that assertion. Please articulate one beyond "I don't like the point of view of the subject of the article".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The recent multiple additions and what appears to me to be an anti muslim point of view towards the chosen content leads me to feel that perhaps the editor that has added this content has a strong association with the subject and that the article is developing a biased slant with the content. This template is fine to add and we will get comments from other editors in the next day . It appears to me that the article is being turned into a soapbox for anti muslim sentiments. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That's baseless. I've made most of the recent additions. The recent additions simply reflect what the sources say. Here is the approach I followed -- search via google, reflect the RS content accurately. If the result is that Littman said thinks you view as anti-Muslim, that's not reason for you to delete the content as you have threatened, or template-bomb w/baseless conflict of interest template and a baseless neutrality template. There is no hint of conflict of interest. Nor lack of neutrality. You have indicated that you don't like the views of the subject, and view them as anti-Islamic. You are entitled to your POV. But you are not entitled to delete material because you do not like Littman's views, or template-bomb as you have when the article accurately reflects the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
COI and POV are not the same thing. A strong point of view does not mean a conflict of interest is present. Please don't confuse the two. Establishing a COI means showing a direct connection between an editor and their edits; for example, if the editor admits to being a friend or relative of the article subject, or they are adding links to their own personal blog. An editor with anti-muslim sentiments who is putting those sentiments into an article may be violating our WP:NPOV policy (and WP:BLP in this case) but isn't showing a COI. I'm not saying that you don't have a complaint, I haven't looked into it, but the COI tag is just incorrect. Unless you have something that does show a connection? -- Atama頭 00:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see any reason to suppose there is a current COI in the article. Some of the older contents do appear knoweldgable without being sourced.
Regarding NPOV, it does appear that Littman has held some views and taken some positions which might be interpreted as anti-muslim, and the current text is in part written in ways that look supportive of these views and positions.
Looking at some of the sources presented, it looks to be the case that Littman has some sorts of links to the European far-right (though possibly not extremely close). For a European Jew, this looks like a notable area of controversy (is 65 years long enough to bury the hatchet?) , and I think it would be correct to cover this in the article, providing proper sourcing can be found. --FormerIP (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Anything I added (which is what appears to have triggered the reaction) is sourced. The section in question is sourced to articles from around the world, including The New York Daily News in the US, Der Spiegel in Germany, Trouw in the Netherlands, Die Presse in Austria, El Periódico de Catalunya in Spain, Sydsvenskan in Sweden, and Ottawa Citizen in Canada. The text is written in a manner that reflects the sources. Off2 is offbase here -- he is trying to censor Wikipedia, by stamping out reflection in this article of an issue covered around the world. Its simply innappropriate for him to do so by deleting the material because he dislikes this fellow's views, as he had threatened, and for him to template-bomb the article with innappropriate templates. It's ironic, given the fact that much of the discussion revolves around others' efforts to censor Littman. I would ask that someone delete the innapplicable COI and neutrality templates. Littman is allowed a POV, it is notable, and it is fairly reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Eppefleche notified me of this discussion, as I participated at the AfD. The material in the article seems justified by the sources. I do not think the article is biased, except that as many bio articles do, it presents some of the events in his later career at somewhat more detail than I think justified. It could also use some copyediting for general conciseness and to avoid repetition of his name. I would similarly suggest eliminating the bold sub-headings and just doing ordinary paragraphs. The only substantial problem is that I do not think he is notable primarily as an historian but an activist, though that is not really a suitable term for a qualifier if it can be avoided. It would be better to find some neutral qualifier, and even the dates would be preferable in this case. If necessary, it can be just David Littman, as I think he's clearly at least somewhat more notable than the hockey goaltender. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

regarding the recent changes, the wiki project history template is inappropriate as well as several categories added (for example "human rights abuses", "human rights activists"). there are far too much details as i already mentioned before. the wording in many cases is strong POV (see for example "evacuating" in connection with the mossad operation) , making the article about littman an hagiographie. the sources (and external links) in many cases are dubious (andrew bostom, dhimmitude, nationalreview,..) but demonstrate at the same time the political environment. in many addiditions i have not yet checked if the provided information is in accordance with the one in the source actually.--Severino (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the added input, I tagged the article in good faith as it appeared to me that the article was being mass edited and that the emphasis or the article was totally changed, I accept the consensus position, fire away, so to speak. I do think that reading the article now, Historian seems totally inappropriate and is not reflected in the article. Reading the article now, he appears to be some kind of right wing anti muslim activist. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the list of publications, there are multiple RS references to him as a historian reflected in the article (and none as a "right wing anti muslim" activist, which seems more to do with your POV than anything reflected in RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that Off2riorob has a good point though. Some people suggesting that the article should be deleted in the ongoing AfD based their rationale on the fact that he didn't seem to meet our academic inclusion standards as a historian. The counter argument was that he still met our general notability standards due to the coverage of his work with the UN. With that in mind, if he's not notable for his work as a historian, perhaps the article title should be renamed? I'm not sure what to, however (maybe "activist" or "humanitarian")? Oh, and back to the COI tag, I don't think it was malicious (I tried to express that in my first post) I just think it was a mistake. -- Atama頭 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with renaming the article. Its not clear that he is not notable for his work as a historian -- we now have many RSs referring to him as a historian (over three decades, including on the issues of Jews under Muslim Rule in the late Nineteenth Century, Protected Peoples under Islam, The Century of Moses Montefiore, L'histoire du relief de Jérusalem, Quelques Aspects de la Condition de Dhimmi: Juifs d'Afrique du Nord avant la Colonisation," etc.) he has written many historical works, and his historical works are widely quoted as can be seen from a google search. That said, I do think he is more notable for his UN work. I think DGG's suggestion makes sense. On another point, the tag-bombing continues with the POV tag that Severino keeps on insisting be attached (though I don't see the use of the word "evacuate" in the article as warranting a POV tag). Perhaps someone can address him on this issue? With the above assertion, he just keeps on insisting on edit-warring to keep the tag on the page. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

the edit bombing and edit warring continues with epeefleches edits. many of them provide superfluos information, for example his comment on blochers election (on the other hand, it could be a surprise for some how close the two are since the photo which shows littman with de winter, has been deleted). others provide misleading information or are based on dubious sources (i named already a few, bawer is another one). --Severino (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

oh and the person is neither a "historian" nor a "human rights activist" although some credit him with that.--Severino (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I must be reading a different article, and 50 different references, than what you are reading. He is "neither" a historian "nor" a human rights activist? That's a unique reading of the article and its references.
First (above) you say there are too many details in the article. Now, you add that the subject is neither a historian nor a human rights activist. I assume that you are not trying to be disruptive. But I have difficulty reading these two statements in the same thread together, having read the article references, and understanding them.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, there are too many details now. what he said here, what he commented there...it seems that by far not all of them are notable. i hope that's clear enough?--Severino (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Stated he didn't know vs didn't know

It's a minor issue, but I am pretty sure that itit was Mossad who stated that Littman didn' tknow he was working for them, not Littman himself. Severino, what is the logic behind this edit? -- Heptor talk 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

quote from the source: "Littman was answering the call of the Mossad, although he explains that at the time he was unaware of the true identity of his partners."--Severino (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gad Shahar, a Mossad immigration emissary confirms: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935128.html (page-search Gad Shahar). -- Heptor talk 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the Haaretz article says explicitly that Littman didn't know we need to just say that. Haaretz is a reliable source. That's aside from the very serious potential BLP issues. I've therefore reverted to the simple wording. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

two of the involved persons confirm each others version..--Severino (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? The sourcing confirms the statement. Good. Now go read WP:BLP. Your general history on this article seems to be trying to smear the subject. That's not helpful and counter to so many different policies it isn't funny. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

try to refrain from personal attacks and try to force wikipedia policies also when it's to the disadvantage of your POV.--Severino (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck guessing my POV. And I haven't made any personal attacks. I've maybe not assumed the best of faith but given edits like this one it seems pretty clear you have since at least August tried to add as much negative content as possible to this article completely disregarding WP:RS, WP:BLP and possibly other policies. Now, if you have a coherent response to my point other than to complain about non-existent personal attacks then let's hear it. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure we're done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think JoshuaZ was commenting on your history of edits on this article. Certainly, that is all I see in what he has written. I agree with his assessment of the edits. As to you as a person, I have (and shall have) no comments, and hope that you do not misconstrue my view of your edits with my view of you as a person.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

what's a negative content? something negative for the article's subject? there are many people who consider de winter, his party and socializing with him very positive. Severino (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

archive

Hi. I would like to set up an automatic archive bot for this page (as it is getting longish, and many of the comments are old/stale), unless there is a consensus that I should not. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to David Littman?

Maybe the article should be moved to David Littman? Looks like David Littman, the historian and human rights activist, is much more likely to be searched than the namesake ice hockey player. The disambiguation will be unnecessary, we'll just leave the link to David Littman (ice hockey) at the top of this page. In addition, we'll get rid of disputes whether the article should be titled David Littman (historian) or David Littman (human rights activist). Beit Or 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I get 3,100 ghits for David Littman +United Nations and 3,700 for David Littman +hockey. Doesn't really support the idea that the historian is better known than the hockey player. In fact neither are that well known, and the disambiguation phrase in brackets is necessary to help readers navigate to the appropriate article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's because the "UN" search is too narrow. Check the article page view stats -- this Littman is viewed roughly 80 percent of the time that one of the two articoles is viewed.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That's just because there's been a flurry of activity in editing this article. In a couple of months time it could be the other way around. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

clandestine humanitarian mission

re this edit. Presently, there's not even an indication as to what the evacuation is supposed to be a pretense for, much less are reliable sources for that claim, or any, given. Presently, nobody mentioned in the article makes the claim, except one Wikipedia editor--a clear cut case of violating WP:NPOV. Combined with edit warring it's WP:VAND. --tickle me 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Littman_(activist)/Archive_1&oldid=1136309401"