The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

attack bio Huldra (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nomination for this AfD appears to be based on WP:DEL3 (exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced). I would say that this is not satisfied. There are sources that back up the statements made. It is not particularly disparaging, and certainly not threatening or entirely negative in tone. WP:NEGATIVESPIN may apply, but that would not be sufficient for deletion. Channel 4 News and Snopes cover the sourcing aspect of the rebuttal (as a side effect, they also cover GNG etc). I would grant that NPOV may be an issue, but that is a clean-up case, not a deletion reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just to be clear: I wrote pretty much the whole article. In writing the article, I searched for RS coverage of Eva Bartlett, included pretty much every RS that I could find into the article, and included what the RS said about the subject. The text completely mirrors what the sources say, whether its positive, negative or neutral. The text in the article is simply the result of writing up what RS have reported about her. If I misconstrued the RS to portray her negatively, OP should point out where and how. If I did not include RS that reflect more positively on Bartlett, OP should point to those and/or add those to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I reiterate my request regarding the two criticisms below: If I misconstrued the RS to portray her negatively, point out where and how. If I did not include RS that reflect more positively on Bartlett, point to those and/or add those to the article. The user Burrobert is arguing that WP:OR should be added to the article to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE and is arguing that the text should not reflect what WP:RS say. That's not how Wikipedia works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bartlett is notable for her work yet there is only one example of her work in the references (relating to her visit to North Korea). There are no direct references to her work on Syria which is the focus of most of the article. When her views on Syria are mentioned in the article the source used is not the article where she made the statement but third party references which are criticising her view. Every Wikipedia BLP of writers, journalists, bloggers etc that I looked at contained some examples of the persons work. This seems the fairest way of giving readers access to the subject’s work.

There are a number of examples of subjective wording in the article. In these sentences Bartlett’s views are described negatively by the Wikipedia editor. The examples I found are as follows:

1. “promoting the falsehood that ....”. The use of the noun “falsehood” makes an editorial comment about Bartlett’s claim without allowing readers to read what she originally said or how she responded to the criticism.

2. “Bartlett's claims were debunked by ....”. The use of the verb “debunked” makes an editorial comment about Bartlett’s claim without allowing readers to read what she originally said or how she responded to the criticism.

3. “Bartlett's claims were amplified by Russian-controlled outlets, such as RT and Sputnik News.”. What is the meaning of “amplified” here? A more neutral term might be “appeared in” if that is what it means. There is no link to where she made the claim or to where in RT or Sputnik News they appeared.

4. “Bartlett falsely claimed that the Al Quds Hospital bombing, where 55 died, never occurred”. The use of the adverb “falsely” makes an editorial comment about Bartlett’s claim without allowing readers to read what she originally said or how she responded to the criticism. It would be fairer to state what she had said with a link to the article where she said it. Then any critical views could be given. If Bartlett had responded to the criticism (which she has done) then her responses should also be given. However, there is no reference to the article in which she stated the claim and we only get her statements as they appear in critical articles.

The linked source to the following statement does not mention the claim made in the statement and no other source verifying this statement was provided: “Several of Bartlett's videos have been removed from YouTube as part of Google's policy to clamp down on content that is part of Russian disinformation”.

There are problems with the following statement: “Buzzfeed News noted that the 2014 elections were widely regarded as a "sham"”. Firstly, this statement is not about Bartlett but seems to be a way of implicitly criticising her without addressing what she has said. Secondly, if an analysis of the 2014 Syrian election is to be included, then balancing opinions exist and should have been mentioned. See e.g. the Wikipedia article on the election which states “An international delegation from more than 30 countries, led by the head of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran's Committee on National Security, issued a statement claiming the election "happened in its constitutional time and date in a transparent democratic way", was "free and fair" and held in a "democratic environment, contrary to Western propaganda"“.

Burrobert 08:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - in its current format. The initial deleted article was created by a clearly partisan block evading sock account, now banned. :FromNewsToEncyclopedia & M.A. Martin. It was a blatant example of an attack page. It was noted that the article "shows obvious signs of activist editing". BLP Noticeboard The only person who couldn't see a problem with the article was the person who has now rewritten it, in pretty much the same vein. The language is loaded, some of the sources are dubious Atlantic Council, Buzzfeed? or biased, The Syria Campaign? and there's no real attempt to cover the article subjects response to allegations made against her. Of note is the fact that her blog has been cited in reference to the section on North Korea but not when it comes to clarification & responses to claims made in msm. It's still a monologue of hit pieces; it's not biographical and, irrespective of the inclusion of so called "reliable sources", it's not neutral or written from a NPOV. Neither is it within the spirit of Wikipedia to pack an article with every negative source you can find, while ignoring the refutations because they are written in "unreliable sources". Or is it? Is that how Wikipedia deals with BLPS? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans I'd suggest that, if you're so interested in this particular article subject, you look yourself. Maybe start with her blog as it contains many articles & links to her responses to what she maintains is a "smear campaign". I ponder why you did not source and include that information in the first place, as you were so keen for the article to be reinstated & overhauled. This is just a rehash of the original attack page. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article's own blog posts are not WP:RS, but they can definitely be used judicially and sparingly to rebut some of the reporting in RS. For example, if Bartlett disputes the Channel 4 and Snopes fact-checks, we could perhaps add a sentence saying "Barlett responded, saying Channel 4 and Snopes were "smearing" her". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know they can be used, which is why I am pondering your reasoning for not doing so. With regard to "reliable sources", if the blog posts of Oliver Kamm, for example, are considered suitable for inclusion in his article, the blog posts of Eva Bartlett should be considered suitable within her own article - particularly where she is responding to serious allegations made against her. If the rules of Wikipedia allow only the negative sources to take prominence, while disregarding as "unreliable" anything positive, that doesn't make for a neutral biography at any stretch of the imagination. :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No blog post by Oliver Kamm has been cited. Please familiarize yourself with the article that you want to delete. Also, my request still stands: If I misconstrued the RS to portray her negatively, point out where and how. If I did not include RS that reflect more positively on Bartlett, point to those and/or add those to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the article, thanks. Please familiarize yourself with what I clearly stated "if the blog posts of Oliver Kamm, for example, are considered suitable for inclusion in HIS article, the blog posts of Eva Bartlett should be considered suitable within her own article.... " What's good for the goose, after all..... When/if I have time I will look through the blog and flag up her responses. In the meantime it still looks like a biased, one-sided attack page which should be deleted. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the misread. But what Kamm's Wikipedia article says has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here, WP:OTHER. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks for flagging up WP Other. I refer you to: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." & "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes".

So, if an article subjects blog posts can be used within their own article (and they are widely used) - that applies to this article subject too. No need for those references to be "judicially and sparingly" used. That was my point & I believe it has got something to do with what's being discussed here. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote by non-ECP editor placed in violation of an arbitration remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - so I've removed/rephrased some of the potential attack language, added a better, non buzzfeed, source at one point (and adapted the paragraph appropriately). In cases where clear sourcing can be indicated to demonstrate a statement is wrong, falsity can be stated. Additional direct statements for what she actually said in the more general areas can and should be added, but it isn't as if no indication is given for what she said to explain what/why others are commenting on it. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not "attack language" to say that something is "false" if it has been widely described as such by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have serious concerns about the reliability of this article, and the very first reference I checked failed validation (The Huffinton Post has misquoted their syndicated source). I have no comment at this time regarding notability, but due to OTRS and BLP considerations, I am requesting that this deletion discussion not be closed without opinions from at least three uninvolved editors, explicitly excluding Snooganssnoogans and RebeccaSaid. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The HuffPo article that misquoted Bartlett should be removed. As for third-party input, I definitely support greater outside input. I notified the BLP noticeboard earlier today. Perhaps the WP:FRINGE noticeboard should be contacted as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's a straightforward attack page. As the Washington Post source itself says, there is an "information war" being conducted between the NATO states and associated media on one side and the Syrian and allied governments and media on the other, a war in which Bartlett is a prominent figure. This page doesn't get beyond being a salvo from one side in that war, right from the start when it was created as an attack page by a sock. Other than one anodyne paraphrase of her blog, all the sources in the article are overtly politically hostile to Bartlett without exception. All those hostile sources are government-friendly media or parastatal NGOs from countries that are direct belligerents or that sponsor armed rebels in the war to overthrow the Syrian government and all of whom are taking part in associated information operations. The Atlantic Council, in particular, is backed by NATO, US armaments firms and Gulf monarchies and tasked with discrediting people like Bartlett. Outside the tendentious sources, the page is uniformly hostile to its subject in tone and content and uses belittling and pejorative language like calling this journalist a "blogger" and using "Assad regime" for the Syrian government. The reader can learn almost nothing about Bartlett's work from the article. Her actual body of journalistic work is not usefully referenced. Very little of the article is actually about Bartlett or her life; it's all about the opinions of people paid to be hostile to her. A balanced, informative page about this journalist could be written, but this low-quality stub isn't it, and it's way worse than nothing. Toss it. 121.72.173.10 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must commend the IP contributor for finding their way to AfD for their first and only edit. Your statement of "all those hostile sources" when a significant portion of the sources within are classified by Wikipedia as very reliable. Additionally, the Assad regime was functionally used as the standard descriptive term to represent that side during much of the civil war, as equivalents usually are and have been during civil wars. Finally, if you are going to make such broad-sweeping accusations, it is probably wise to provide some excellent, non-tendentious, sourcing, given that an indicated failure to do so underpins much of your criticism of the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I in turn must commend you with equal sincerity for your understanding of how IP addresses work⸺until now I never realised that you were allocated one at birth and carried it with you throughout the internet until parted from it by death.

To reply to your point about reliability, I would just point out that reliability isn't a kind of permanent infallibility that falls on a source once it's designated as reliable, like being elected Pope. Even reliable sources are notably less reliable when they have a partisan engagement, as in this case the Washington Post article for one admits it does. The Western reliable sources have a less than stellar reputation for maintaining reliability in respect of Western governmental campaigns to justify wars. The Tonkin Gulf incident, the Kuwaiti babies who weren't thrown out of incubators, the Iraqi WMDs that didn't exist, the Viagra that wasn't given to Libyan soldiers to rape, all spring to mind. All these false narratives were promoted as reliable in reliable sources back in the day, when the corresponding war was being promoted to Western publics. What this means is that the degree of partisanship in the particular piece of writing being cited should be examined critically in such cases, rather than simply citing reliable sources to create an article with a POV overtly hostile to the subject of a BLP. This hostile selection of "reliable sources" is precisely the form of abusive editing that was exposed in the notorious Philip Cross case and resulted in his topic ban. It should be noted that Bartlett was one of the "goons" that Cross taunted over his hostile editing. Allowing the deleted attack page of one of Cross's victims to be replaced by another similarly hostile one would perpetuate the notoriety Wikipedia attracted through the Cross scandal.

Finally, even within a hostile source some of the contrary perspective can be found and cited if the source article isn't a total hatchet job. That didn't happen here. 121.72.179.235 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is clearly notable due to significant coverage in mainstream sources. I toned down some of the accusatory language in the article, and it needs more work, with expansion to allow for some nuance. My first impression was that the article violated WP:NPOV in an egregious way. However, I read the article sources before commenting, and found it more plausible than not that the article was basically factually accurate. That said, action words are fine for creative writing classes but not necessarily for a neutral encyclopedia. Fairness should be uppermost for a WP:BLP. Curiocurio (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable due to significant coverage in mainstream sources.--Panam2014 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article may have issues, although they are not that serious, yet the subject has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is quiite clear her bloging, and various claims therein, has attracted attention and SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deletion is not an article improvement process. if you think there are BLP problems, fix them. Queen-washington (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – seems to be a notable blogger who went on trips and has a strong viewership. Some independent sources; enough to pass notability guidelines. Redditaddict69 15:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.