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

Human rights Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Israel Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

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)[reply]

• I also feel that excessive detail is being inserted into the article and some of the citations appear to be opinionated and possibly not wikipedia reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]