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

Sources:

• http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/110502/view2.cfm
• http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/342319AA8E47B447C1256AA7002C40C0?opendocument
• http://wupj.org/news/archive/back_issues/issue72.html

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

> 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The previous discussiom above appears to assert that he can be reffered to as a historian. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I disagree. They were weakly sourced but now the source is OK. TwoHorned (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wrong. It does mention it. There is no BLP violation. TwoHorned (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree. TwoHorned (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]