Talk:Avril Lavigne

My source got removed and I need explanation

My source recently got removed by editor called NJzombie. I asked on his talk page but removed all my question and suggested I start in talk page. I want simple answer. He said "not exactly what the cited source states. Cited source is a gossip page as well and not exactly reliable "

1)Sources is at the bottom which says

LAVIGNE ROMANCES LOVER'S ROCK RIVAL Avril Lavigne has disproved rumors she's engaged to Sum 41 star Deryck Whibley, by allegedly romancing his rock rival Doug Robb at Wednesday's World Music Awards. The singer, 19, had no date at the Las Vegas bash because her boyfriend is on tour in Canada, but reportedly ended the evening kissing and fondling the Hoobastank frontman, according to Britain's The Sun newspaper. A shocked witness says, "Avril was absolutely blathered after the awards show. She had a drink in her hand almost all night and organizers were far from happy because she was too young to drink. "She was manic -- running around the party and acting like a real rock 'n' roll chick. Doug took a shine to her and they seemed to hit off straight away. They left together at about 2:30 a.m. and went back to the Venetian hotel where Avril was staying. "I doubt Deryck will be too happy when he finds out."

2)GOSSIP PAGE? I really want you tell me what is the difference between my cited source and all the other links displayed This source I used. How is it any different https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/McGrath-calls-for-truce-Love-warns-Lavigne-about-3302482.php from these that you didn't removed. https://web.archive.org/web/20100226084100/http://www.okmagazine.com/2009/10/avril-lavigne-files-for-divorce/ Ask.men? His this any different, in fact all the sources cited in relationship shows no difference to my cited source. https://archive.ph/20120529015150/http://www.askmen.com/celebs/entertainment-news/avril-lavigne/avril-lavigne-engaged.html Gemmaso (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is the one that was immediately noticed and sourced from an obvious gossip site, which is unreliable. It was also removed one time before this by another editor. Just because an editor reverts or removes an edit for a bad source, it doesn’t obligate them to remove all similar sources within the same article. NJZombie (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your not answering my question. If that is a obvious gossip website than how are the others sourced not gossip website? There is no difference between the source I used compared all the other sources used for relationships about Avril Lavigne. If your going to remove my source than you have to do the same for the others, otherwise is double standard. Gemmaso (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely did answer your question. Maybe those others are gossip sites but no, I’m under no obligation to remove those as well. That’s not how it works. I addressed the source of your edit which I know to be unreliable. NJZombie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your wrong about my source being a Gossip website. The others that are sourced are the ones that come from tabloibs/gossips. My source comes from SFGATE which is described as "a news website based out of San Francisco, California, covering news, culture, travel, food, politics and sports in the Bay Area, Hawaii and California. The site, owned by Hearst Newspapers, reaches approximately 25 million to 30 million unique readers a month, making it the second most popular news site in California, after the Los Angeles Times." Gemmaso (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if a publication or news site is generally reliable, gossip sections in which reports like somebody saw somebody else having an affair, which this is, are not. The source is clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight.

The added content clearly presents contentious material about living persons and are backed by a questionable source. NJZombie (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstable you cannot prove that a rumored claim between Robb Doug and Avril Lavigne was all gossip and even if Avril denied it, which she didn't doesn't meann it didn't happen. The part about him and Tyga is considered a rumor too, so the recent 2023 should be removed aswell. There are dozens of pictures of Robb Doug and Avril Lavigne them grinding and fondling eachother during their dance party, so you can't claim is questionable. How is that Questionable if there's dozens of photographic evidence? It's not it's some baseless rumors without evidence. Picture evidence is here. here.https://img5.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/4/v/4vngf52crwsssw2.jpg?skj2io4l

This article from International Business Times is an American online newspaper that publishes five national editions in four languages.

https://www.ibtimes.com/list-avril-lavignes-past-relationships-she-prefers-rockers-and-playboys-754272tional also mentioned Robb Doug and Avril Lavigne dating.

Based on this what your saying. There's no reason why I can't remove all the other sources as there is clearly no difference between my source and theirs, mine in fact in come from news site, while the other sources are tabloids. Gemmaso (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t care who the information is specifically about. I have no particular interest in any of the people mentioned, including the article’s subject. It’s not up to me or anybody else to prove a claim is NOT true. It’s up to YOU to provide a trustworthy source backing the claim, which you did not. If it’s true, which it may very well be, it’s on you to find a reliable source to back it up. As far as removing other sourced information, do what you see fit bit it doesn’t mean somebody won’t challenge you on that too. As a new editor, it best that you acquaint yourself with WP:RELIABLE in order to get a better idea of what is and isn’t an acceptable source. Even more important in this case would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. NJZombie (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Even all this trustworthy source and WP:RELIABLE seems very subjective and biased. Like ever since the Russia-Ukraine war, not a single Russian news site or Russian article is considered trustworthy anymore. On the other hand news gossips and tabloid-like articles are used as sources and none removed them. But as long as they considered reliable enough than they are acceptable.

I used SFGATE as my source. According to the Bias and Reliability

https://adfontesmedia.com/sfgate-bias-and-reliability/

Reliability: 43.92

Bias: -1.24

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to middle to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 40 are generally good; scores below 24 are generally problematic. Scores between 24-40 indicate a range of possibilities, with some sources falling there because they are heavy in opinion and analysis, and some because they have a high variation in reliability between article.

SFGATE scores 43.92, nearly 44. Reliability: Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting

So it is a good source. So using it for the wikipedia article shouldn't considered a problem. Gemmaso (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Your Media Bias Chart website has no relevance here. Once again, even if a website or newspaper is deemed generally reliable, it doesn't mean that every section of it is reliable by default. The gossip pages of a reliable news source do not automatically receive trust by association. Refer to WP:NOTGOSSIP which explains what Wikipedia does not partake in. You don't need to like the rules and guidelines, such as WP:RELIABLE, but you do need to abide by them. You asked your question as to why your edit was removed by both me and another editor. You received your answer. NJZombie (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I already read your rules and it clearly says "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"

How is this source celebrity gossip? Where does it say Gossip when the upper link it says news even in the link, this section says /news/article, nothing about gossip. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/McGrath-calls-for-truce-Love-warns-Lavigne-about-3302482.php every article about celebrity relationships in that article is a a genuine as the other (not removed) sources used to describe Avril Lavigne relationship. The other sources which has archived link next to them, how are they not gossip if my source is considered gossip? Why am the only one picked out for the source I used. Gemmaso (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gemmaso Because it uses a deprecated source. While SFGATE appears to be a useful source in many cases, the Lavigne-Love story is utterly unreliable, because of these key words in the story: "reports Britain's Daily Star newspaper". There is community consensus that the Daily Star may not be used as a source. Since SFGATE is only repeating what DS reported, the lack of reliability of DS carries over to the SFGATE story. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't didn't read the Avril and Robb part. Reports " according to Britain's The Sun newspaper " not Daily Star. Okay, the Daily Star is not reliable but who said The Britain's Sun newspaper is not reliable? Maybe is not realiable eithger. Another source " The Sun reports that Avril Lavigne was spotted canoodling with Hoobastank frontman Doug Robb after the World Music Awards on Wednesday " http://popdirt.com/avril-lavigne-heats-it-up-with-doug-robb/32859/ Gemmaso (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Sun is as bad if not worse. Quoting WP:RS#Perennial sources: The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article… —C.Fred (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: people Avril "influenced"

The wiki article states that Avril "influenced" Rob Halford. The source says nothing about Avril Lavigne "influencing" Rob Halford, he simply praised her. Halford was 30 years into his career when Avril Lavigne's first album came out. Take a close look at that list, it's ludicrous. Kickysam49 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed Halford for reason stated: liking someone is not the same as being influenced by. Checked a few references for others in the list and they do mention being influenced by her... Random fixer upper (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

country

i haven't heard a song of hers that doesn't go under the country genre - she lists her main sources of inspiration as country artists, but why isn't country listed in the "genre" section of the name card?

note: - started out performing country - country musicians as inspiration - performed at country fairs - frequent collaboration with country artists - most often ranked in country charts - receives country music awards kuchesezik (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kuchesezik: That's because inspirations/influences do not equal an artist's main genre. And genres are based in what reliable sources, not user opinion. You are not going to find sources that call her music country. Bowling is life (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean started out playing country? Her first album is not described as country by Wikipedia. Nobody considers her a country artist. Like I said, being inspired by country music does not make her a country artist. Also, collaborations with country artists and performing at country fairs does not make her a country artist either. Bowling is life (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2024

Remove "Also when she was 5, she was diagnosed with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which caused her problems during her school years." and Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The source appears unreliable and does not cite its information, and no primary source for this claim could be found. 2A00:23C6:8809:A301:8E8:35E6:62B3:6FE1 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done cyberdog958^Talk 02:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)