Talk:Amiel Vardi

Use of MW as a source
While some use with great caution for BLP is theoretically permitted, the fact that the name of one of the authors is used as a negative mark against another source and the contentiousness of the area is a clearly negative sign. Therefore, I don’t think that great caution covers this area, despite the stated friendly coverage, as both the actions/organisations and source are controversial. FortunateSons (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Pings: @Nishidani @DuncanHill FortunateSons (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your remark, after three readings is, at least to me, incomprehensible, as a technical objection. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I’ll rephrase:
 * The use of MW is only permitted with great caution (if at all) for BLP.
 * There is no very significant reason for using this particular source (ex.: first to break a story), which could justify great caution.
 * The author of one of the articles and the cited content are part of a controversial area.
 * Therefore, while the coverage is friendly (which removes one of the common issues with the source, ‚hit pieces‘), we should still not use it here, both based on the general „no use“ rule and the „great caution“ exception. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)