Talk:Eva Bartlett

This is neither neutral nor a biography

It's bordering on WP:ATTACK. Nothing about her early life, education or volunteer activities etc, which you'd expect to find in a Biography. It's just a monologue of critical opinion pieces, with a couple of lines thrown in at the end to cover her response & with a selective focus on the usual slanted key words used to disparage. Additionally, she is a writer, journalist & human rights activist, not just a "Canadian Blogger". Any comments before I start editing this into an actual biography? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to find information about her early life and other activities in non controversial reliable secondary or tertiary sources, according to Wikipedia standards. It really seems she earned notability since few years and linked to her activities related to the Syrian Civil War and UN Speech. Or maybe we didn't find the good sources ones so far ? FromNewsToEncyclopedia (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And there lies the inherent flaw in Wikipedia, treating the likes of Snopes & Bellingcat, for example, as reliable, while skewing opinion as fact. It would be laughable if this wasn't an actual living person; if this article complies with BLP, there's something desperately wrong with the policy. Or maybe the problem lies with the interpretation of that policy by clearly non-neutral editors. Either way, it's appalling. I see that within minutes of me flagging this up as an attack page, you were busy inserting more negative opinion. Coatrack. Rather than waste my time bickering over "non controversial" sources, maybe the BLP Noticeboard is the best place to start. As I said, this is NOT a biography. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

yes rebeccasaid the page does need something to balance the criticism. Even some text describing what her work is about would be nice. What does she write about? What are some of her main positions? The main body of the article jumps into the criticism without telling us what she has written. The first paragraph tells us she is a blogger and is known for spreading falsehoods-it does not seem to be a balanced appraisal of her work. Burrobert 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I am going to post it on the BLP Notice Board, as a first step, but thank you for your comments. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Burrobert 16:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

So I've noted here, & at the BLP Notice Board the obvious issues with this article. It appears that the person who originally created the article, and who was still adding inadequately sourced contentious content after I raised the problems, has now been blocked as a block evading sock. FromNewsToEncyclopedia & /User:M.A._Martin The general argument used by this blocked account is that if someone says something negative in a "reliable" source, it must go in. In my limited knowledge of the "rules" I don't believe that's necessary a justifiable reason for inclusion in every case, and certainly not if there is only a single opinion based source. I am sure I'll be rapidly corrected if I'm wrong.  :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what username did you previously edit under? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones. Thank you kindly for assuming good faith. Your unfounded accusation is noted. FYI I have already been accused & the comments were deleted as "unsupported accusations of misconduct". [1]. I don't really feel the need to explain myself again. But please feel free to report me, it makes absolutely no difference to me. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything. I'm sure other editors are perfectly capable of interpreting a remarkably sophisticated edit history [2] when they see one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones You directly asked which username I previously edited under, you didn't ask if I had. Sounds like an accusation to me. As I was permitted to take part in the ArbCom case without hindrance, I am pretty sure someone, somewhere has userchecked already, hence the "unsupported accusations" comment. I wouldn't class being able to string a few statements together as "remarkably sophisticated" either, it's hardly rocket science, but whatever........ No comments about the article itself though? (Which was the actual purpose of this thread). --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebeccasaid: what is your planned approach RebeccaSaid? Are you going to put up an alternative page for discussion, or perhaps make piecemeal changes? The BLP noticeboard item does not indicate any strong opposition to your view that the current page is not neutral.

Burrobert 10:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd propose writing a new article from scratch & submit it for consideration by the community - blow it up & start again. I looked at editing the article as it stands, but I'm not experienced enough to confidently do a major rewrite on an existing article & it needs gutting imo. :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@RebeccaSaid: In case the deletion does not go ahead I added a comment to the BLP Noticeboard giving details of how I think the current article should be improved. Do you think that the word “widely” should be removed from the lead paragraph? It seems to involve an editorial judgement.

Burrobert 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You can certainly improve it with more information about her work, if you can find reliable sources that cover it. That won't be easy but the article still needs work and would benefit from more coverage of her work rather than criticism of her work. I think there is a path forward with this article after a few edits I made earlier but again, that path runs through finding more reliable sources on her work.

Sorry. not sure how formatting works but I want to state that the current opening sentence is an absolute joke. This is a straight up attack. "known for peddling conspiracy theories about Syria." This needs to be concluded resolutely and tossed out. Mister asdfjkl; (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the page has sufficient reliable sources and because the text reflects the language of the reliable sources. The claim that the page is an attack page is false, as is the claim that the sourcing is just derived from "opinion" pieces. This is a classic case of a prominent conspiracy theorist and pusher of falsehoods being described as such as in Wiki voice because the reliable sources describe her as such, and editors who have an affinity for the subject and her conspiracy theories screaming "bias" because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You obviously have very strong opinions about the subject of the article ("prominent conspiracy theorist") & that's your POV. I also have opinions but I wouldn't force them into a BLP. There isn't even a vague attempt at neutrality here. It's not even biographical. Just one criticism after another without any meaningful attempt to include her rebuttal to the accusations made. I understand the the inclusion of critical opinion, but not to the extent that it constitutes practically the entire body of the article. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize this but on Wikipedia, we adhere to reliable sources. There is no original research POV in the article. I see on your user page that you refer to the "mainstream media" as a "brainwashing tool", which perhaps explains your spurious call for a speedy deletion and inability to distinguish reliable sources from "critical opinion". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know about your "reliable source" criteria: Snopes, Bellingcat & HuffPost included. My personal opinions on msm, however, are irrelevant to the content of this article and whether it conforms to the principles of your BLP policy. I don't believe it does in its current state. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with RebeccaSaid, this article is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and one of the most obvious examples of a WP:ATTACK article you can find. Every sentence paints this woman of borderline notability with a bad brush. You include the subject's defense of herself, but then use an unencyclopedic tone to undermine it by saying "without convincing French journalist Pascal Herard nor Canadian journalist Agnès Gruda." Using google translate it seems that the above quote is actually WP:ANALYSIS, Pascal Herard is not mentioned and Agnes Gruda is the author of the article (the article appears to be an opinion piece as well). This article uses some reliable sources but they are twisted and used to push the scales in one direction. She seems to generate enough press that it should be possible to write a more neutral article, but the current article is ridiculous and absolutely worthy of being speedy deleted per WP:G10. SWL36 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It certainly needs a trim (I don't see what is added by using Snopes.com or Bellingcat as sources) but this doesn't look like a WP:G10 to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have taken out the weakest sources, but there seems to be plenty left. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This might make me a snitch, and I don't know if it's relevant, but maybe you should know, the subject of this wiki is sending people over from Twitter with Bartlett-approved sources https://twitter.com/EvaKBartlett/status/1024302275341299712?s=19

In short: The filer of the speedy deletion is coordinating and canvassing on Twitter. I've also won "Asshat of The Day Award," which I'm grateful for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bahaha yet more sham allegations! Asking for opinions off-wiki about an article is neither "coordinating or canvassing". Now if I'd asked people to open accounts and vote with me, as a recently indefinitely topic banned editor did when the article of one of his targets of abuse was up for deletion, you might have a point. Alas that's not the case. A quick perusal of your Talk pages and your little "outing" attempt would suggest the award is well deserved. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Snopes is perfectly fine. I don't know if there have been any RS noticeboard discussions about Bellingcat, but it seems like an OK source (if it's among many) and fine if it's attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

But why use Snopes and Bellingcat when unquestionably WP:RELIABLE sources are available? It just looks like piling on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather questionable sources used in this article

I see a lot of rather questionable sources used in this article, just starting with a few examples:

• Snopes.com, has been discuses several times at RS/N, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#Snopes.com_again

• Bellingcat, same, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Bellingcat

• Al-Araby Al-Jadeed ..never discussed at RS/N, AFAIK.

• Aljazeera.com, owned by the Qatari Royal family...and Qatar has been funding some of the Salafi rebels in Syria. Seriously, does anyone think they will report even remotely fairy on Eva Bartlett?

• Atlantic Council, again, major funding from Gulf countries. IMO: should only be used with attribution,

• Comments? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Snopes is generally considered reliable, the two lesser known Arab sources are questionable, and certainly there is a discussion to be had on whether AJ or the gulf connected sources can report fairly on those who oppose the interests of Qatar, just as you would not expect RT to fairly report on the Syrian oppo. This article has source overload and I think some can probably be stricken and replaced with the better sources that say very similar things without even needing to change the text of the article. It looks like belligcat was judged unreliable from that RS discussion so it should be excluded if possible. SWL36 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The RS/N discussion on Snopes does not show that people generally consider it reliable, as far as I could judge. I agree with you about the Gulf ..or RT sources, but can you truly say that mainstream Western sources are any better when it comes to the Middle East? I have not forgotten how, when it came to say, Saddam Husseins WMDs, Russian media was in fact far more correct than, say The New York Times, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In the most recent discussion on Snopes they were considered to be generally reliable. Your arguments that independent western sources, especially those as reliable as the NYT (the WP:RS holy grail it seems), are unreliable for all Middle East issues aren't going to go anywhere. If you want to improve this article you should find more information on Eva Bartlett from reliable sources, preferably about what she actually does, as the article is almost wholly composed of criticism. Removing the weaker sources is probably warranted, this article suffers from a deluge of sources that could be cut down to remove the less reliable ones. SWL36 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a problem, when the newspaper which published Judith Miller falsehoods (based on the lies of Ahmad Chalabi....whose name is strangely missing from the Miller article [3])...when some people still consider that that newspaper is the WP:RS holy grail...then we get what is called in computer science: GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out. I have some (in no doubt vain) hope that Wikipedia editors can think for themselves, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Huldra, you have been here long enough to know that no source is infallible or 100% reliable. I suspect that you are well aware that Judith Miller was fired from the New York Times in 2005, just as they fired Jayson Blair in 2003. And in both cases, they disavowed flawed articles and engaged in vigorous, ongoing self-criticism. That is precisely what we expect from generally reliable source. So, yes, the New York Times is not flawless, but I challenge you to name another general news source that has a demonstrably better reputation for accuracy in the context of general news reporting. If you truly believe that the New York Times is "garbage", then I suggest that you create and edit another online encyclopedia where references to that awful newspaper are purged ruthlessly. See how much credibility and readership that new site gains.

All that being said, this article has major problems, but attacking the terrible MSM accomplishes nothing here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, as you might have noted, I didn't put New York Times on my list. BUT: in the runup to the 2003 war, and the runup to the Libyan bombing in 2011; those Russian sources (which we now consider unreliable) were far, far more accurate than the Western MSM.....A fact I (as a "westerner"), find rather embarrassing.

Also, I am horrified by all the use of Saudi, Gulf and Quatari sources in the articles about the Syrian war, though. Those sources are 100% unreliable, IMO. And I am deeply sceptical of any source if I dont know who funds it... like, who funds thesyriacampaign.org? I see they raise funds for the White Helmets; that makes them a partisan group. What they think about Bartlett I can tell you with 100% certainty....whithout ever reading the article, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have taken out the Bellingcat reference again, as I don't see that it serves any useful purpose. I also really don't like the final section "According to journalist Pat Hilsman...": why should we particularly care what Pat Hilsman thinks? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Coming to this very late, but I just had a look at the RSN archives and it seems that the consensus is that Snopes is broadly but not 100% reliable[4] and al-Jazeerah too.[5][6] Reliability is always contextual and relative, so attribution is good, but no reason not to use these sources with care. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Al-Araby has quite a strong reputation, I think, and as its article says is regularly used as a source by other RSs, although it also publishes op op eds and so we need to be careful in distinguishing news pieces from opinion pieces where more cautious attribution would be required. Atlantic Council is a thinktank with academic advisors; it's not as good as academic sources, but has to fact-check to a certain extent, so not gold standard but good enough with care. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

For Reference

Hello friends. For reference, I thought I'd give a link to a video in which Bartlett denies several of the claims made in this article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9zAIde_7Q

Also, if she is said to blog for RT, it seems to me that he most "reliable" source would be the links to her alleged RT blogs. Where are they? Gunnermanz (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that RT hosted blogs. I generally use the app which only has tabs for Feed, Op-ed, Shows and Live. I made a search of the full website under the term "blog" and only found one story about bloggers. I would not worry too much about it though as there are too many other issues with the page to fix in my opinion. Some of the issues are listed on the Afd page.

Burrobert 03:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello friends. Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I think you are absolutely right, and to the best of my knowledge RT does not host blogs. Which is why I fail to understand why the second sentence of this article states: "She blogs for the Russian-funded outlet RT." The two sources (c.f., endnotes 2 and 3) given for this claim are The Washington Post (reporter Louisa Loveluck) and Newsweek (freelance journalist Sally Hayden). As Bartlett notes in the above video, the false claim that she has a business connection to RT has been repeated unchecked in the mainstream media and could not be true anyway since RT does not carry such blogs. My friends, I submit that if the best we Wikipedia editors can do is repeat factual errors and misleading innuendos from the mainstream media on the assumption that only the MSM is "reliable" while independent journalists like Eva Bartlett or Robert Fisk are not, then how is Wikipedia anything but an appendage of the MSM conglomerates, the genuine reliability of which seems evident from Loveluck and Hayden's pieces). Cheers. Gunnermanz (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

From a purely intellectual viewpoint it is an amusing situation. A RS makes a statement which can be proved to be incorrect. The original incorrect statement can be included in Wikipedia because it comes from a RS. However, it would not be possible to add a sentence to the page along the lines “RT does not have a section for bloggers” because it involves original research (i.e. examining the structure of RT) which is forbidden under another Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, knowledgeable readers will probably realise the error and take it as an indication of the quality of the article.

Burrobert 13:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

She writes opinion editorials for RT, as she states herself "Had Channel 4 followed the link, they would find the opinion section dubbed “Op Edge”, to which 19 writers currently contribute, many of whom also contribute to numerous other publications. Many papers have such opinion sections, including The Guardian, which describes the entries there as “opinion pieces” and not “blog posts”. Personal reply......

Calling it a blog is standard dismissive language used to trivialize. :)

I was in the process of putting together a more biographical article for consideration, as opposed to this "Eva Bartlett is a blogger and here's a list of everyone who has had a pop at her", all whilst maintaining it's a neutral BLP. Unfortunately I was stopped in my tracks by another editor, with an apparent axe to grind, just I was about to cover the controversies section. So it remains and will remain unfinished in my Sandbox. I believe I can post it here though, despite it now being included in the "Arab/Israeli conflict" scope. RebeccaSaid/sandbox --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@RebeccaSaid: I had a look at your sandbox article. It provides some good, interesting background material about Bartlett and seems consistent with other BLP's on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I am in the same position as you regarding editing the page (and was just as unaware of the rules existence but can see why such a rule would be necessary). I wonder what the rule is about giving permission to other qualified editors to use your prepared text? Burrobert 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Burrobert It wasn't complete by any stretch of the imagination, I haven't had much time unfortunately & obviously I won't be wasting any further time on Wikipedia. The information is there anyway, anyone interested in the article becoming an actual biography can use the links. I won't hold my breath though! :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Facts

My dear friends, we need to cite our sources, even on this Talk page. I know that we have no access to hard data since governments refuse to release information. I sense all of us here are good people but arguing at cross-purposes. So, our first task should be to get our governments to release the information we need to resolve these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnermanz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed versus blog

Some of this was discussed under the item 'For reference'. Two sources describe Bartlett as writing a blog for RT. It seems Channel 4 has also described Bartlett as a blogger for RT. It is fairly straight forward to verify that RT does not host any blog's. It does have an op-ed section which is where Bartlett's pieces appear. The last was in mid 2018. Bartlett herself has addressed this description in the Sort article that I have used as a reference. She said "Alas, the Channel 4 team didn't do the most elementary investigative research to see where exactly my supposed "blog" on RT was. Had Channel 4 followed the link, they would find the opinion section dubbed "Op Edge", to which 19 writers currently contribute, many of whom also contribute to numerous other publications. Many papers have such opinion sections, including The Guardian, which describes the entries there as "opinion pieces" and not "blog posts" ". I have changed the description in the leading paragraph to say that she writes op-ed's for RT. The alternative was to include Bartlett's response to the description in the article but this seems unnecessarily messy given that it involves a seemingly minor point. I have also changed the description of RT from an "outlet" which seems too broad to "television network" which is the description on its Wikipedia page. Burrobert 14:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Removal of youTube videos

I have amended the text relating to the removal of videos of Bartlett on youtube. Here are my reasons:

1. I am not sure about the reliability of ‘The Syria Campaign’ as a source and so think the text needs to be attributed as a claim made by the group as part of its report rather than being stated as a fact.

2. The report states that the videos are of a talk given by Bartlett. It does not state the videos were posted on her account specifically.

3. I have placed some text in quotes to make it clear that it comes from the report and is not a claim being made by Wikipedia itself. The reason is that it is not clear that youtube does remove videos that are propaganda. I had a look at its terms of service and propaganda does not appear as a reason for removal. At least one of the videos mentioned in the report is still widely available on youTube. Youtube did state earlier in 2018 that if a channel is owned by a news publisher that is funded by a government, or publicly funded, an information panel providing publisher context may be displayed on the watch page of the videos on its channel. The information panel providing publisher context indicates how the publisher is funded and provides a link to the publisher's Wikipedia page. This feature may only be available in the USA though. Google itself was going to amend its search engine so that it “deranks” certain sites such as RT. This is not what the report appears to be referring to though.

4. I note that the report by The Syria Campaign is mentioned later in the same section and its statements are also described as claims.Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Presently, the article states: "She is known for her advocacy in support of the Assad regime, and for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues and "recycle" children in its videos."

I disagree with this sentence, I have no idea wether or not it is true that they stage rescues, but I do know that Syrian/Russian and other sources claim that. (See eg this nbc news article) By stating that it is unequivocally true, Wikipedia is taking sides.

We should not do that, IMO, we should report things as being disputed, when they are. (And yes, I am old enough to remember the scorn about 100% of the US press poured over anyone who in 2003 weren't convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD....not to mention the story of Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuweiti babies from their incubators and letting them die on the floor (see Nayirah testimony), etc, etc ....should I mention that Uranium buying from Niger? Lol...the lists goes on, and on.), Huldra (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Channel 4 News and Snopes are RS, and they characterize this as falsehoods (the Guardian piece cited those sources approvingly in making the same determination - the Guardian is a RS). There is nothing in that NBC News piece lending to credence to the notion that White Helmet stage rescues; the NBC News piece clearly describes this as the Russian government's claim. Your postmodernist take on evidence and reality is out of sync with Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as true or false" is not the same as "I have no idea whether or not it is true".Burrobert (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

These are generally treated as false claims by RS. Wikipedia generally takes a "side" in that it rejects fringe and conspiracy theories as well as state propaganda by authoritarian states. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of academics recognise that the white helmets is an al qaeda proxy. Its clearly biased as it stands.80.111.40.28 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead say:

• Option A: "for promoting the falsehood that the White Helmets stage rescues"
• Option B: "for arguing that the White Helmets stage rescues"

−−Huldra (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Option B −−Huldra (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option B ---- Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option A -- This RfC is incomplete because the editor who started it left out the reliable sources used to substantiate the text. Reliable sources clearly and explicitly describe the claim as false. These sources include Channel 4 News[7], Snopes[8], the Guardian[9] and the Huffington Post[10]. I've asked the editors above on multiple occasions for reliable sources that differ in their assessments of Eva Bartlett's claims, and no such reliable sources have been presented. We should adhere to Wikipedia's WP:RS policy which requires us to stick to what RS say, as well as WP:FRINGE which requires us to clearly identify fringe ideas as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) Amply supported by reliable sourcing. Option A Option B strikes me as something of a whitewash, given the sourcing indicating quite clearly that it is not true. Coretheapple (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option A, as it is supported by multiple RSes, option B is WP:PROFRINGE - false balance to a wild assertion unsupported by any reliable sourcing. Please note that promoting this bio has become a cause in certain twitter circles in the past few months (search Eva Bartlett twitter wikipedia)Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option A. Wikipedia summarizes what Reliable Sources say, and many Reliable Sources identify Bartlett's various statements as extremely fringe, as false, and/or as conspiracy theories. If anything, the lead should more clearly indicate how fringe she is. Alsee (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option B per NPOV. The body of the article - and the rest of the lead adequately distance WP from Bartlett being generally regarded as a 'truth-teller', there is no need to "hammer this point home" as crudely as this text does. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option B That is fine for the lede. More detail can be included in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Option A Per RS describing her statements as false and conspiracy theories. RS , like the Channel Four investigation, should not be overruled. (Bartlett literally wears an I love Bashar bracelet. LITERALLY wears that bracelet. She is not a journalist. Propagandist. ) Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - this is the only version supported by the reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 21:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option A as per RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option A per the sources, but I'd much rather add some balance to this BLP lead by compromising and either saying that she is a journalist, or drawing more BLP-compliant equivalence by only saying that she has reported with an anti-WH bias. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 18:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  While she does refer to herself as a journalist (and perhaps RT does as well), most RSes I've seen label her as a blogger. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option A (Summoned by bot) per the sources. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option A as an obvious outcome required by an application of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV broadly. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) per above, and per the sources. Bradv🍁 05:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• A, since it's solidly backed by the sources. This is not RevisionismPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option A Editor Snooganssnoogans gives the clear policy based argument why this is preferable. We should reflect the prevailing opinion in reliable sources, whilst not giving credence to WP:FRINGE views. The problem with Option B is that it's expressed in weasel words that actually give credence to her views in wikipedia's voice. As such it lends weight to views that are fringe, false and a conspiracy theory. WCM_email 11:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Neither The first is clearly opinion per se, and thus must be sourced and cited as opinion. The second does not appear to be directly supported as such. The closest I can see is "She has stated her opinion that the WH have staged rescues. Sources A,B (etc.) state that this opinion is incorrect." The examples given as "choices" both fail WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as a result, alas. The article has a couple of spots where opinions are stated as "fact" which also need to be taken care of. Collect (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, how is A) wholly an opinion? She has promoted allegations in her blog and on YouTube, that the White Helmets stage rescues. Her comments have been shown to be false. Not sure I follow how that can be dismissed as simply opinion? Surely a more accurate version is "She has alleged that the WH have staged rescues, however, analysis of her allegations have shown them to be false." WCM_email 15:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

ABC promotes a falsehood that Arsoles are round - the definition of a claim as a "falsehood" is an "opinion" when combined with "promotes." The statement is thus that she deliberately promotes that which she knows is false which is not a statement of "simple fact". My suggestion avoids that problem by clearly separating the claims - one being simple fact, and the other being the opinions of others, cited and ascribed as such. Your suggestion, however, retains the problematic statement of opinion as a statement of fact. You might find the conflation a quibble, but it is what WP policies require. The closest I can see is "She has stated her opinion that the WH have staged rescues. Sources A,B (etc.) state that this opinion is incorrect." Collect (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

So the Channel 4 story for example, has no 'facts', only opinions? Dan the Plumber :::::::(talk) 17:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

eva bartlett claims - have you read this closely ? I wonder, Channel 4 s factcheck ( not what you'd call it 'opinion check', but wp should follow RS and not random editors like you), found it 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Bartletts tale that a girl who turned up in Aleppo turned up in the next month in two different locations is a lie. Your option, Collect, is a gift to the propagandists putting all claims , however absurd, on an equal footing. Useless. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia policy and "WP:NPOV" is "non-negotiable" per longstanding policy. Is there a reason why you would not want the report of factcheckers to be ascribed to them? That you think that "bad people" are not entitled to the same rules as "good people" in interesting. My position is that the policy is quite clear on this. Collect (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't talk about 'good people' or 'bad people' I pointed out what WP:RS say. The RS looked at facts. Until and unless Bartlett convincingly challenges the facts, related in the Channel 4 piece, for example, the wikipedia article should follow the revelations and the language found in RS. (Channel 4 tried to get Bartlett to comment on the facts. She demurred. Fact). Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eva Bartlett has no credibility

Eva Bartlett is a verified liar & a propagandist for the Syrian regime & Russian narrative. In her relentless attempts to smear the White Helmets, a search & rescue volunteer organisation that save thousands of lives, Bartlett accused them once of 'victim recylcling'. Her smear was checked & proved to be a blatant lie by an outstanding C4 documentary (https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children). Mbarotchi (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, one problem as that, as Peter Hitchens noted:

"The FO is in a mess over this. It has for years been backing the Islamist rebels against the Syrian government, a policy which involves supporting exactly the sort of people we would arrest if we found them in Birmingham.

Perhaps that is why it claims the ‘White Helmets’ are ‘volunteers’ (they are often paid) and that they have ‘saved over 115,000 lives during the Syrian conflict’ and done ‘brave and selfless work’ to ‘save Syrians on all sides of the conflict.’

When I asked them to provide independent, checkable evidence for these assertions, they came up empty after three days of searching.

This is not surprising, as the ‘White Helmets’ generally operate only in areas controlled by unlovely bodies such as the Al-Nusra Front, until recently an affiliate of Al Qaeda, and the equally charming Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam), famous for putting captured Syrian Army soldiers in cages and using them as human shields.

Independent Western observers, whether they are diplomats or journalists, can’t really go to these zones, because they are quite likely to end up very dead and probably headless." (in Are we saving Syrian 'heroes'... or just importing more fanatics?), Huldra (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have challenged Mr Peter Hitchens to provide evidence for his claims about the White Helmets (https://twitter.com/MaherBarotchi/status/1023897939524116483). So far, he failed to back up his claims. The only parties who smear the White Helmets are the Russian government, the Syrian regime & their allies, all guilty of whitewashing atrocities against Syrian civilians. The White Helmets not only save lives, they documents atrocities too. This is why belligerents in war crimes attack war time humanitarians (http://theconversation.com/syrias-white-helmets-and-the-long-history-of-attacking-wartime-humanitarians-101339). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarotchi (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Jordanian and the Algerians are closing their borders to the White Helmets (link,link)..why do you think that is? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

'Jordan has shut its borders, saying its refugee camps are already full with more than 600,000 Palestinian and Syrian registered refugees, as well as hundreds of thousands of unregistered refugees.

The Syrian government began an offensive in June forcing hundreds of displaced people to take shelter on the Israeli-Jordanian border.

The White Helmets have operated in opposition-held areas rescuing civilians from the rubble of airstrikes, but they have been attacked as western agents by Russia since their work has been funded by the UK Foreign Office (FCO) and the White House. Their footage of the impact of air attacks has also shocked the western world, and revealed the often brutal impact of the Syrian air campaign. More than 250 of its volunteers have been killed in attacks.'

'the Syrian government escalated airstrikes and artillery attacks on southern Daraa province, close to the border with Jordan, causing thousands to leave their homes. Jordanian government spokeswoman Jumana Ghunaimat was quoted in The Jordan Times as saying that Jordan has already absorbed large numbers of Syrian refugees and that “we simply cannot receive more”.Dan the Plumber (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's not our job to make a judgment about her credibility. She is a blogger for RT and wideley derided for her defense of the Syrian regime. We don't have to go into the weeds about the White Helmets. We're not a White Helmet Tribunal, just deciding what is correct to have inthis article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bartlett has written another piece getting repeated by the Kremlin -[11] “Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets’ criminal activities, media yawns”. You see the words “UN Panel” and you might assume that this panel was convened by some official body of the UN. Nope. It was a panel organized by the Russian Mission to the UN and Bartlett. Using their clout, the Russians had the whole thing recorded and part of Bartlett’s typical lobbying for the Assad dictatorship. Like Blumenthal, Beeley and other scoundrels, you cannot help but believe that they are making money doing this work.' [12]. A minor example no doubt , this pretending that a 'UN panel' spoke about the White Helmets, rather than it being a case that a Russian panel and one of its obedient creatures, Bartlett, spoke at, but it shows up something of the MO. A propagandist, not a journalist. Dan the Plumber (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If a reliable third party writes about that blog, it may or may not be worth adding to this article. But talk pages are for improving the article, not to discuss the subject matter. Let's focus on finding sources not on general discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. While I personally feel edified by Dan's little addition there at the end and feel it does add some useful context to other information being discussed here, by and large the discussion in this thread so far (on both "sides" of the obvious issue) has been largely unfocused an irrelevant WP:original research which does not serve to clarify any editorial issue or improve any particular piece of content. Let's stick to what WP:reliable sources say and what that WP:WEIGHT means for the shape of the article itself. Idiosyncratic speculation from any editors who might be particularly strong detractors or defenders of the subject can be saved for off-project. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Everipedia

I came upon Eva Bartlett's entry in Everipedia recently (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/eva-bartlett/). Everipedia articles are I believe based on Wikipedia's content. In Bartlett's case the end result is quite different from her entry here. Editors may be interested in looking at it. In addition under "Interests and achievements" there is some interesting information about her which we may be able to use. "Bartlett maintainted a four year music scholarship and Dean's List at Mount Allison University. She is a certified scuba diver, First Dan Black Belt in Tae kwan do ​and certified Grade 10 in classical piano by the Royal Conservatory of Music".Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That Everipedia entry is ridiculous. It is solely sourced to Bartlett herself, and includes the bizarre sentence, "Bartlett has been the victim of a smear campaign by various supporters of the White Helmets, which she thoroughly exposed and debunked in a YouTube interview." Nothing on that page belongs in this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought perhaps we could include the text I quoted in a "Personal life" section.Burrobert (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Bartlett has spent some time (evident on a search of her public twitter for instance) complaining and calling for change of her Wikipedia entry. I believe I also saw a link to her Everipedia entry float by. Everipedia's quality controls are divorced from ours.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Venzuela Section

BurroBert (talk · contribs) has recently added a section noting that Bartlett has been "reporting" from Venezuela, however the sources for this are an op-ed from RT written by Bartlett (not a third-person article, and in RT which is unreliable when discussing international conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RT) and the other source is an interview with Jimmy Dore. These do not meet the standard of WP:RS and this section shouldn't be included without reliable, third party sourcing, which I have been unable to find. SWL36 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Concur, in particular due to WP:FRIND issues here. Absent a RS it should not be here.Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

I recently added an update to Bartlett’s page to say that Bartlett has commenced reporting from Venezuela. The content that I added has been reverted twice so I will throw the matter open for discussion here. The content that I added was as follows:

"In March 2019 Bartlett began reporting from Venezuela. She appeared on the Jimmy Dore Show and wrote an op-ed for RT".

I included links to both sites as verification.

The first revert stated that the sources were unreliable. I returned the content and stated:

"RT is not a proscribed site. It has been used as a source in over 500 other wikipedia articles. In the case here it is the most reliable source for verifying that Bartlett published an op-ed on its site. As far as I know the reliability of the Jimmy Dore site has not been discussed. However since it is the official site for the Jimmy Dore Show it is the most reliable site for verifying that Bartlett appeared on the show".

The second revert stated:

"Per WP:PROFRINGE, WP:FRIND., with a side of SYNTH. Absent coverage in mainstream sources this should not be included".

1. WP:PROFRINGE refers to Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. I can’t see what theory is being promoted by the two sentences that I added. It seems fairly clear that she is writing from Veneuzula, has appeared on the Jimmy Dore Show and has written an op-ed for RT. There doesn’t seem to be anything FRINGE about any of those three statements.

2. WP:FRIND refers to the need to use independent sources when describing fringe theories. This does not seem relevant as no fringe theory has been mentioned.

3. WP:SYNTH says “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”. I have included material from two sources but what is the conclusion that has been drawn? Is it that “In March 2019 Bartlett began reporting from Venezuela”? I don’t think that is a controversial conclusion.

4. I should mention why I added the content. The page is a bio on Eva Bartlett. As such it should give details about her work. It is clear that she has now changed her focus to reporting from Venezuela so this should be mentioned in her bio. Writing op-eds for RT is notable enough to be included in the lead section ("She writes op-eds for the Russian-funded television network RT") so it seems reasonable to mention the Venezuela op-ed. Jimmy Dore is notable enough to have his own page where it is mentioned that he is "best known for hosting The Jimmy Dore Show … ". So appearing on the Jimmy Dore Show also seems to be notable.

What so other editors think about this? Burrobert (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Bartlett is not in any sense a "reporter" and has never done anything close to "reporting". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Already discussed in a section above. Bartlett is primarily known for promoting very unusual views on geopolitics on RT and elsewhere - e.g. falsehoods on the White Helmets. All information added here should be reliable sources that are independent of Bartlett.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 update: Eva Bartlett's biography page is still neither neutral nor a biography.......

In mid-2019, all of the criticisms of the editing on Eva Bartlett's biography page made by RebeccaSaid, made mid-2018, and of other people before, remain true. Consequently, the page is a flagrant example of WP:ATTACK and is breaking every one of WP:10SIMPLERULES, WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, WP:USEPRIMARY, WP:USESPS, with the goal being to besmirch and mock Bartlett in violation of WP:ATTACK. Edits have been made to improve the quality of the page by adding missing information, removing false statements, removing citations that don't support the claims in the "biography", and by adding more accurate and reliable citations, but these improvements have been resisted by edit trolls. Wikipedia requires that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view - We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong", but none of that is honoured on this page as it presently stands. WP:5P2 explicitly prohibits personal interpretations and opinions, which run amok on the current page. The language of the page violates WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:10SIMPLERULES, not just in the information that is presented but in failing to present the other views, as WP:5P2 requires: "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"". It's also clear that the current version of Eva's biography page violates WP:NPOV by using "judgmental language", by "stating opinions as facts", and by failing to "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". The current version of the page also violates WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:USESPS, which both explicitly state, "Sometimes, a self-published / primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Attempts have been made to use original document citations for Eva Bartlett's personal quotes, but those edits have been vandalized to instead use less reliable, incomplete, secondary sources for Bartlett's own words. I have made an effort to form an accurate, neutral, properly-cited, and more fleshed-out biography for Eva Bartlett in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Bartlett&oldid=908130573 Nozoz (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC). A review of the history of the Talk page for Eva Bartlett's biography shows that many people have taken issue with the WP:ATTACK nature of the page, and that many people have attempted to improve it by making it more accurate, informative, objective, and conforming with Wikipedia standards. There has been guard-dog resistance to those efforts by the same individuals who might be in violation of WP:CIRCUS. Nozoz (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note concurrent discussion at BLP/n - permaversion where it seems participants, other than Nozoz, are opposed to extensive use of Bartlett's blog as a source in this article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Those seeking to protect the current WP:ATTACK nature of the page (typically the same people who've been WP:CIRCUS editing Bartlett's page) are trolls and are in clear violation of Wikipedia's most basic neutrality principles / pillars / rules, and many other Wikipedia guidelines. When citing a quotation of a source, WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:USESPS make it clear that "Sometimes, a self-published / primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Instead, you have tried to shield using the original and full-context source for quotes in favour of the same citation-spammed attack articles that use only a piece of what Bartlett said. Nozoz (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think we can add some non-controversial background information about Bartlett's personal life? The Everipedia article mentioned in a previous talk section contains some interesting details. Perhaps we could do something similar with appropriate referencing. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Nozoz points to what they claim is a better biography--I would love for anyone to explain how this can ever be considered a reliable source (let alone a neutral one) for a BLP. Going down the list of "references" in that version of the article, properly reverted by Bbb23 (and perhaps reverted earlier by Icewhiz), the only thing I really want to know is whether Nozoz was warned of DS in the area of BLPs, and if they're still editing. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The current "well-known for peddling conspiracy theories" doesn't sound very encyclopedic, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It has the virtue of being true and verified... Drmies (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Eva Karene Bartlett is a Canadian activist and blogger who is well-known for peddling conspiracy theories about Syria.[1][2]" (my emphasis) may be true but is not supported by the cites given. They stop at "debunked claim" and quoting "conspiracy narrative". Nothing about well-known or peddling. BLP covers conspiracy theorists too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Right. The first source says "some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include... Eva Bartlett" and later alludes to counter narratives in general as conspiracy narrative. The second source states that she's controversial, uses a quote from a person about a "conspiracy narrative" but yet earlier adds one that says "her reporting is more accurate than what we get in mainstream media". Not that I necessarily agree with the latter but nowhere does it state in the sources that she's "well-known for peddling conspiracy theories about Syria". Clearly a case of analysis from a biased editor who wants to push his POV. Also having that line as the opener while mentioning nothing about her work in general as it seems to have been previous revisions is a clear whitewashing of her work and a BLP violation. --GlassBooks (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Free Gaza Movement: third boat voyage.

Until recently, the Career section stated: "She was on the third successful boat voyage to Gaza run by the Free Gaza Movement, landing in Gaza in November 2008 and remaining there throughout the Israeli attacks on Gaza called Operation Cast Lead." The cited source was a page from the Free Gaza Movement's website about the voyage.

• Snooganssnoogans deleted the statement, citing original research as the reason.
• Clearly, because the statement was sourced and no synthesis was involved, no original research was involved. As an invalid deletion reason had been given, I reverted the deletion.
• Drmies then reverted my restoration, giving as a reason that the Free Gaza Movement is not a reliable source.

In my opinion, the Free Gaza Movement website is, at least, a reliable source for who was on its voyages. Therefore, I think Drmies's argument for deleting the whole statement is questionable.
    ←   ZScarpia   22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite why you'd want such a blatant conspiracy theorist associated with your team of your pet topic (I/P conflict), I don't know. But no, something like the "Free Gaza Movement" website is not a reliable source for anything. I'm sure you could find it reported by a reliable news source if it happened and/or was/is notable. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the notice about active arbitration remedies at the top of this page. In particular, note the requirement for having made 500 edits before contributing here. Due to the WP:BLP policy, there's a need for giving careful consideration before making statements about people such as describing them as conspiracy theorists. A comment such as "with your team of your pet topic (I/P conflict)" is, to say the least, a bit dodgy as far as WP:NPA is concerned.     ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, the essence of an encyclopedia is its reliance on secondary sources, and one of the pillars of this one is neutrality. The organization's own website is obviously not a secondary source and they have an inherent COI. We may not have much reason to doubt it, but we certainly don't have any obligation to accept what they claim about who was on their ships, especially if anything is to be gained from this or that person being a part of their project. And thus neutrality commands us to not accept the claim. Besides, you may think it important or relevant, and maybe the subject does too, but if secondary sources don't remark on it, why should we? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used with care. At the very least, the Free Gaza Movement website is a reliable source for a statement about what the Free Gaza Movement claims. As far as neutrality goes, any editor should think hard about whether that is going to be served by objecting to content taken from organisations of which they don't approve. By their nature, stongly contested topics are going to abound with people or organisations supported by people who share their outlook but opposed by those who don't.     ←   ZScarpia   11:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)