Talk:Amiel Vardi
Latest comment: 1 month ago by FortunateSons in topic Use of MW as a source
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Use of MW as a source edit
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)
- Sure, I’ll rephrase:
- 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)