Talk:David Littman (activist): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
KslotteBot (talk | contribs)
m Aan template: dropping type=content, since the parameter has been deprecated, using AWB
Line 60: Line 60:
:::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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 12:53, 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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 13:19, 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. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 13:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== clandestine humanitarian mission ==

re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Littman_%28historian%29&diff=461843275&oldid=461821055 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 [[WP:WAR|edit warring]] it's [[WP:VAND]]. --[[User:Tickle me|tickle]] [[User_talk:Tickle me|me]] 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Revision as of 22:53, 21 November 2011

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]