This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Carly Rae Jepsen article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
I don't agree with
User:Joseph Prasad replacing the statement that "Emotion underperformed commercially" with "Emotion had moderate commercial success" without citing a source to support that statement.
He writes (on my talk page) that "there are many albums that did worse than Emotion that are not considered a flop, maybe even a success.
Drake Bell's
Ready Steady Go! is an example of this. He's even considered a moderately successful musician even though his highest peak was #81. Jepsen peaked at #8 in Japan selling over 70,000 copies. So, not a flop. Find a reliable source saying so." I respect that view, but that's what it is: one user's view. We (as editors) aren't meant to decide how to define a "moderate commercial success" or an underperformance; we leave the sources to do that.
I'd like to think Vice magazine—which is
already cited in the article to support the original underperformance statement—is considered a reliable source, but if that's not enough, here are some more:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/reggieugwu/what-makes-carly-rae-jepsen-a-pop-star - "Kiss, the album she rush-released in 2012 to capitalize on the success of “Maybe,” never gained traction, selling only around 300,000 copies in the ensuing three years. And Emotion, though brimming with ostensibly radio-friendly dance pop and nearly universally lauded as an artistic breakthrough, has so far fared even worse, debuting at No. 16 on the Billboard 200 with just 16,000 first-week sales. In its second week, it plummeted to No. 67."
http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/9764-the-50-best-albums-of-2015/2/ - "She came out the other side with E•MO•TION, an album that highlighted her gifts, captured the hearts of a newly dedicated fanbase, and went criminally overlooked commercially. The album's chart performance is a shame, because E•MO•TION deserves more than a cult following."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/arts/music/heres-a-brand-name-scooter-braun.html - "From the couch in his casual corner office, Mr. Braun — part smooth-talking operator, part motivational speaker and newly a humbled family man — discussed his company’s marquee 2015, including its commercial flops (Ms. Jepsen’s “Emotion”) and biggest wins (bringing Mr. Bieber back) while fiddling with his wedding ring (his first child was born in February)." (N.B. her manager mentions the album's success in Japan in this interview, although as her manager he may not be the most unbiased source.)
Most sources here are pointing out the US only, which Wikipedia does not only list US charts. So yes, you can say what you had there, but only for the US, because a source says so. Even though Top 20 is not at all a flop. And peaking in the Top 10 of other countries definitely makes it not a flop. Plus, most of those are blogs. And it's a contradiction since the lead single was called a "moderate commercial success" by a few sources when talk:Joseph Prasad|talk]]) 06:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"Even though Top 20 is not at all a flop. And peaking in the Top 10 of other countries definitely makes it not a flop."—again, we're not the ones to form conclusions like this when it comes to writing the article. That's what the sources are for. And a lot of those "blogs" you dismiss are actually the blog sections of websites for well-respected music publications. You're within your right to think that a top 10 or 20 placing equals "moderate commercial success", but unless you can find a
reliable source to support this, we can't keep it in the article. That the Emotion article contains similar
original research-type statements speaks more of a need to remove those from that article than repeat the same unsupported assertions elsewhere.
Extraordinary Machine (
talk) 22:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Again, as I said, most of those sources are playing off United States sales only. Hence, you cannot say what you are trying to say, as it is not referencing other countries, but only the US, which by that case you'd have to say "underperformed commercially in the United States", but you cannot say that about other countries. On the matter of "I Really Like You", a single is considered a hit single when a song reaches the Top 40 of the Hot 100 (or by some cases, just hitting the Hot 100 or even the Bubbling Under Hot 100). The reason is it considered a flop is due to the bias of "Call Me Maybe", as you can see from the articles posted here, they will keep comparing it to that song. Everything she does will be considered a flop if it doesn't hit Top 5, I'm sure. According to the sources
here, "I Really Like You" was called a "hit", which identifies commercial success.
Here, they call "Tug of War" a moderate success, and it only sold 10,000 copies in Canada. Plus, we can just say like in the album article, it charted/sold lower/less than Kiss, because like I said, the words you're saying puts it off as if it had zero success anywhere. --
Joseph Prasad (
talk) 02:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Stick to the facts, and there won't be a problem. "Was successful..." is not a fact. "Sold n copies..." "Appeared at position n on x chart..." are factual. Determinations of "success" are not NPOV in most cases.
LaMona (
talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
If sticking to the facts alone is too dry for your liking, another option would be to clearly present these
WP:SUBJECTIVE evaluations as the opinions of third parties (which is, by the way, what they are). "The album was a failure" is an unprovable judgment; "critics/observers/whoever generally considered the album a failure" is significantly better, assuming you back it up with sufficient references to avoid being
WP:WEASEL-ly. You would have to take great care to avoid giving niche opinions
WP:UNDUE weight, but that's just business as usual—after all, even if you stick to facts and figures, you have to choose which facts and which figures.
larryv (
talk) 07:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Carly Rae Jepsen new album
Carly recently said that she's working on her new album, that it will be disco and ABBA and Bee Gees influenced, can someone please add this to her page? :)
Not to sound cynical, but does declining to perform at one event -- while for admittedly laudable reasons -- constitute activism? Are there examples of other, ongoing functions she has performed in the furtherance of a particular cause? If not, labeling this section "Activism" seems like a bit of a stretch. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.234.46.172 (
talk) 04:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Carly getting a sword , new section or at least an addition
I feel like Carly getting a sword was a really major event… there were a ton of articles spawned from that event and even a petition to give her a crown. I think it merits entry into this wiki. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CarlyRaeJepsenStan (
talk •
contribs) 23:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Forthcoming
I noted in the discography section that Dedicated is "forthcoming", as is often done on other articles. 2600:387:3:805::90 objects for reasons I'm unclear about. What do others thing?
Bondegezou (
talk) 17:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
so.....what is happening??
Is 2022 Winter Games (Paralmpics) Canadian Flagbearer related to Carly Rae??
205.189.94.8 (
talk) 20:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
The "Queen of Pop" epithet section in the impact section should be removed - there's only one actual use of this in the sources cited, and the the other 'queen of refences are all to a stupid meme about her and are basically
WP:SYNTH92.97.135.246 (
talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply