Talk:David Littman (historian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Sources

Sources:

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)