Talk:Katy Perry

Impact

Why Katy doesn't have a section about her impact? I think she has a impact or at least a legacy in about 10 yeas of carrer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.219.49 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Her career technically started in 2001 with the release of Katy Hudson, and as noted in a previous thread, such a major section would need consensus go add given past rejection as premature at that point (two years ago). Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not fair! I think I can speak for everyone that katy at least deserves to have an impact section at least, and if it is for the information I think we can all collaborate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.219.49 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Her career started in 2001, fine, well i think 17 years of carrer deserves a legacy or impact section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.219.49 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Duration of career doesn't automatically indicate whether such a section is warranted. If it is to be created, then we would need specific demonstration of impacting/influencing society, the music industry, various musicians, or any combination of those. Read #Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018 for more. I'm not saying this is out of the question, but it would need discussion from multiple people in addition to you, me, or the user who started that thread. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Currently no, I have not seen any journalistic, academic or scholarly material on Perry discussing her impact on society, politics, religion, music, etc. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? Are you tell me that katy doesn't have impact in music? is this a joke or what? tell me you're not serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.219.49 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

IP user, specify about sources that discuss her impact on the above perspectives that I have noted and then we can have a discussion on an impact section. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

Should there be a part that discusses when she kissed that boy who was auditioning on American Idol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandsymmetry (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that when it so far hasn't jeopardized her career or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM applies. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So because it hasn't harmed her career like it does male careers, it's not valid to mention she abuses her position and power to sexually assault random victims? 67.170.135.201 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Only if published, independent sources state that she "sexually assaults random victims". So far, to my knowledge, none of them have. General Ization ^Talk 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Would linking to online groups and communities who posit that she has sexually assaulted this contestant constitute enough material to mention a controversy on the page? Or does it require publication in a mainstream news agency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.174.70 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, no, "online groups and communities" are not reliable sources. General Ization ^Talk 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor editing, I'm on a mobile. What about this article published by The New York Times? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/style/katy-perry-kiss-american-idol.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.174.70 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "sexual assault" does not appear anywhere in that article, and the only expression of anything close to it ("a forced sexual act") is quoting one (anonymous) viewer's tweet as an example of the controversy surrounding the act. There is no reason to attribute any expertise, concerning the law or sexual misbehavior, to that one anonymous viewer. The fact that it is controversial does not make it a criminal act (which sexual assault is, by definition). General Ization ^Talk 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so if we refraim from the use of the words "sexual assault" but instead refer to "unwanted sexual act" and list it only as a controversy, as published in the New York Times; would that be allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.174.70 (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If someone was to describe the event and the controversy in fully neutral terms, with citations of multiple reliable, published sources that likewise reflect that neutrality, it would likely satisfy our policies concerning neutral point of view. See also the discussion there of due and undue weight, which would require that all widely-held perspectives on the event be accurately discussed. However, based on our discussion and your demonstrated bias, I consider it unlikely that you are the one to do it, and, as already mentioned above, it is unclear that the event is notable in terms of its long term significance. General Ization ^Talk 04:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

How are you to judge the long term significance when the significance of an event is often measured by it's citation in wikipedia? How is the New York Times article biased?

The significance of an event should never be based on its citation (or the absence thereof) in Wikipedia. And I did not say that the New York Times was biased, I said that you have demonstrated that you are. The Times article very clearly included the controversy as a footnote to the larger article, which appeared in the Style section covering popular music and media -- not crime or sexual abuse. Please sign your posts; I have already left you instructions as to how to do this on your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 04:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As for how we judge long term significance, read the article at the link (those exact words) in my message above. General Ization ^Talk 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the contestant has refuted allegations of assault/harassment, and stated that the situation was misconstrued. See this post from him for details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems pretty clearly written from fear of the reprisals to his future career.

Looks like this is the blocked edit warring user's IP going on trying to add the content. Give it up, it has been refuted and done with. Your total biasness and inability to see the situation from both end fails one of Wikipedia's core neutral point of view policies. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the other end of the situation here? Yes, I'm biased toward ensuring that sexual assault is recognised as such (whether or not the victim tries to protect their career by denying it). That doesn't exclude me from being able to write from a non-biased perspective. However, I'm failing to realise how people at wikipedia can continue in a mob mentality to prevent edits to articles that would then contain factual information. I can link to the definition of sexual assault and link to the video. I don't need an unbiased article written by multiple mainstream organisations to show it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.107.73 (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The other end of the situation Gekaap (talk · contribs) is that you are blocked for edit warring and you are continuing to ignore the WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH warnings placed in your talk page, rather choosing to waste editors time here, by using multiple IPs. Any further comment here will lead to an extension of your block, including all your IP addresses. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

New main image

I think this image provides a much better and clearer shot of her face than the current image. Thoughts on changing it? SAM ^talk 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No objections from me, but let's wait for further input as I don't want a dispute over image changes like there was before the current one was settled upon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You can hardly recognize Katy in the pic, it might as well be a drag impersonation of her. The lower portion of her face looks terribly swollen due to the duck face-lips she is making in the pose. To be frank I don't even think the current pic being used is any good. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, what would you recommend using? Something from the Witness era would be ideal at this point and there's tons of tour pics available in commons. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Snugs, I will have to check once and confirm back ok? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this one? Hear my reason. The short pixie haircut image we already are placing in the Witness section, which makes sense there as it is kind of an iconic look of that era. But I believe an infobox image should be much more timeless and display the person at their absolute gorgeousness. Given the attire, the smiling face and the general look of happiness in this image, I believe this one or a crop of it should be the infobox one. The current image just does not cut for me as something which will immediately draw attention to the article. I know very well that infobox images are for identification purpose, but aesthetic is also a part of it. Just look at the difference guys! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not gonna lie; that IS far better. Seeing her happiness and smile is quite pleasing to the eyes :). Unless anyone objects, I say we use your suggested pic. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that one's nice. SAM ^talk 17:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Since we seem to be in agreement, I went ahead and changed the pic. I hope that's ok. SAM ^talk 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)