User talk:Aidenrouhani

Daily Mail (MailOnline as well) is not reliable by any means. Please see WP:DAILYMAIL. The source needs to be avoided at all costs, even if the info in it is true. If it’s true and notable, it can be found in other sources that are actually reliable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: That page also refers to context and the context of it is that it is a interview. The website is unreliable for most things, but I don't see where it bans interviews? Usually as long as interviews are verifiable, they are fine non-dependent of any other factor. Also, we can't just get another source "that is actually reliable" because it's an exclusive interview, meaning it wont be published else where. This is information that Beer presented herself, yet we can't use? Reliable Sources is a guideline, yet we have an actual interview from the person themselves :/ Aidenrouhani (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidenrouhani: Either way, it is what it is, i just don't want to miss out on information. :) Aidenrouhani (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll break down the listing at WP:DAILYMAIL so you understand what it means. The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC - the use of "deprecated" is important, as that means that the source should not be used unless permitted. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist - this is what I said before. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles - the second part of this sentence is important, the source should not be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) - not applicable as the album was released today. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. - while this is true, the use of this source should still be avoided. Even if Beer gave an exclusive interview, that doesn’t matter, because the actual source is unreliable. For all we know, this could be a forgery and Beer could have not been involved at all, since Daily Mail is unreliable. It’s like if I posted to my Twitter account that Beer said a second album is on the way. I can’t just cite that on Wikipedia, because it is against the rules. Even if I have video evidence of Beer saying that to me, I can’t use it on Wikipedia. It’s against the rules. Same situation here. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As well, being fixed-minded and saying it is what it is isn’t exactly helpful for consensus building, because it lets me know that you aren’t willing to change your mindset. Now, I assume this is not the case, I just wanted to let you know that it could come across as that. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: Me saying it is what it is isn't referring to having a fixed mindset, it's actually showing of me adapting and being ok with whatever outcome as it isn't a big deal, I just want to optimize the information we get on there, nothing more :) Aidenrouhani (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for clarifying. :) D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]