Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Joan Smith

Joan Smith wrote an article praising her in contrasts to Camile Paglia's article slamming her. I think it deserves mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.182.29 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this comparison? And why it might be notable to include on her article? Yves (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-why-lady-gaga-belongs-in-a-museum-2233477.html If this is not notable then why is Camille's? This is a direct response to her article from a reliable source... to add a positive response makes the article more neutral.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

GaGa or Gaga?

Back in 2009 or so, I always saw her stage name stylised as "GaGa". Is that not somewhat noteworthy of inclusion, at least in the opening paragraph? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the consensus that was reached back in 2009. See Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 3#GaGa vs. Gaga. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's LADY | GAGA get it right, bitchez.

Singles navbox

It's about time the singles navigation box become activated. Gaga is now at three releases with singles emanating from each. Also the singles navbox will be a more suitable place for the various promotional/other songs link listings. Imperatore (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Facebook page

I am just asking, would it be possible that we metion something about her facebook page? Just recently she has becomethe person with the most facebook followers, 30,200,000 to be axact, surpassing Michael Jackson who is currently at 29,900,000. It is reguarded as an honor considering that there are 600 million users on Facebook. If not, nevermind, just suggesting. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does Lady Gaga have a criticism section?

The criticism section should be rewritten or omitted. It holds no significance to her career, not to mention no other pop star articles (Madonna, Britney Spears) include a criticism section. Lady Gaga hasn't been criticised enough to even justify it's inclusion. Camille Paglia's opinion doesn't hold enough influence to substantiate a criticism section. At the very least more reliable sources and examples should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.0.157 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

She should not have a criticism section. You are right. I have removed it, but lack the team to prevent its restoration and expansion. We'll see what happens. DinDraithou (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Criticism section says "Note that criticism and controversy sections are not prohibited by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents is causing trouble with the article's neutrality" Not everyone likes criticism sections, because they can lack NPOV and become coatracks. The material in this section should probably be integrated elsewhere in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Digital sales

I think we should add this and also check the RIAA http://gagadaily.com/2011/03/lady-gaga-makes-u-s-digital-sales-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLittleMonster (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't creative/music director be added to her occupation?

in 2011, Gaga became the music director for the Thierry Mugler fashion house, and also became Creative Director for Polaroid creating the Grey Label by Haus of Gaga. surely this should be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardDeehan (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Avant-garde

Should avant-garde (particularly Fame Monster forward) be listed under her genres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.189.18 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga a columnist.

Under the occupations section I think we can include columnist now. Here is the source which is Lady Gaga herself.

http://twitter.com/ladygaga/statuses/53004466085036032 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.34.134 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Age

Someone needs to change her age from 24 to 25.. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where? The infobox is correct, and I don't think it would appear anywhere else. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy

I think it should be added in the LGBT advocacy section that part of the proceeds of the "Country Road Version" of "Born This Way" will benefit the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Heres the reference from billboard [1] (its in the last paragraph). Another think that could be added is that Born This Way is the first chart-topper song to use the word transgendered in its lyrics, the reference also from billboard is here [2] (At the end of the first paragraph). Thanks for your time ^^ Could somebody at least read it? D:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.87.67 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is unimportant and shall not be added.186.45.87.156 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All due respect, I think otherwise. It should be added, obviously as it has held 'importants' in some way rather. It shall be added. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, its RECENTISM at this point. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously, IP:186.45.87.156 said it was not important, therefore would not be added. It is infact important. It will be added, not just yet. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think someone should change lady gaga's album sales to at least 17.8 million, according to wikipedia itself her album The Fame sold 12 million copies worldwide and according to this article here http://gagadaily.com/2010/12/the-fame-monster-named-best-selling-album-of-2010/ The Fame Monster sold 5.8 million albums worldwide as of 2010 and was named the best selling album of 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strollback98 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Gagadaily is not a reliable source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Legolas: I don't see any evidence that Gagadaily is reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

O Music Awards

This award is relevant? O Music Awards. --NicolásTM (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No. There is already an awards page and this particular award, there's hardly any third party notability. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposition: new group/list in template

I have been writing Nicola Formichetti and think that both he and Laurieann Gibson should be included in a new group in Template:Lady Gaga titled "Principal collaborators" or something like it. Nick Knight is a possible addition if we choose "Frequent". In any case Gibson and Formichetti need to be written into the main article, which is really not very good at present, but the template is far more manageable and secure.

If you can include Maria Aragon, bless her heart, we can include these two. DinDraithou (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have failed to mention proposing this under Template talk:Lady Gaga#Proposition: new group/list too. Since there are no objections to Formichetti or Gibson, I have added them to the template. DinDraithou (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Voice Type

In this article it say's that Lady Gaga is a Contralto singer but that is nottrue at all because her vocals sound more like mezzo soprano she has high/light sound to them also she has a very powerful vocals and she Has a very wide vocal Range, She can sing low and high and to support this i have found a few website that state she is a Mezzo soprano — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakoMonster (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga — the Anti-christ

Per this article, I'd like to incorporate some analysis of Gaga's imagery and possible correlations that might indicate her role as the Anti-christ. 70.153.125.192 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP, claim that someone is the Anti-christ because of X or Y needs many reliable sources. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm the enemy. The Illuminati are stabled in my barn like stupid fuckers meant for riding should be. You can't win against us. DinDraithou (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

language much? Take this request seriously even though it may be correct or not correct. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sociopathy

I have been watching this article for a few years now, wondering when it would be stated that she exhibits extreme sociopathic traits and qualities, and feel it should be included in the article. It doesnt take a genius to realize this. Everything she does, ie. lack of guilt/remorse, narcissistic tendencies ("My album is the best album of the decade"; huge webs of lies that people guillibly believe (the whole Monster thing and the whole "Born This Way" message, etc.); promiscuous sexual behaviour ("I slept with the guys on tour because it was more convenient"); her extreme superficial charm. I could go on. AGiorgio08 ^talk 03:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool :) find reliable references, maybe even get a consensus going, then just maybe it might be added. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you two talking about? DinDraithou (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you take a read of the heading, you will find out :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets stop going around incircles here, MStar clearly indicates that a great number of reliable sources, a neutral point of view and a consensus is needed for somethimng like what AGiorgio states to be put in a BLP. Else this discussion is moot. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How to Display GaGa?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Isn't "Gaga" suppose to be displayed as "GaGa" like in her Bad Romance video? It has been displayed many different ways in all forms of media but what is actually the correct way? AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has been established that, within the article, Gaga should be used on all occurrences. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you dare silence me! Your queen doesn't stand for shutting people up, she says that everyone can say and do what they want! She's Lady GaGa but you lazy people (especially you) refuse to type it that way because you were Born LAZY That Way.186.45.87.156 (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You might wanna read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY, else I suggest to take your chances with WP:BLOCK. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But Lady Gaga is "Lady GaGa" on itunes.

Exactly! But her (Personal attack removed) are too (Personal attack removed) to edit the entire article and change it to "GaGa." (Personal attack removed) yet all of you judge/hate me for being CORRECT.186.45.79.61 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're "correct", then I trust you have multiple third party reliable sources—as required by WP:MOSCAPS—that show the GaGa spelling is what she prefers? iTunes alone is not sufficient. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have multiple third party reference to say she prefers "Gaga"? --143.53.134.73 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Has she stated how to write it? I'm sure you Little Monsters AKA Slaves have watched the Bad Romance video over a million times each so you'd know that in the video she has "GaGa" and as you Little Losers would know, she pays attention to what goes into the video and not how the video is posted so whoever posts the video is clearly LAZY like all of you and doesn't know how she wants it to be but in the video that she worked on and "put all her heart into" she puts down "GaGa" clearly showing that's how she wants it. Next on her iTunes page, it is posted as "GaGa" and in many other articles in reputable sources as "GaGa." I didn't know that Mama Monster raised useless Little Idiots. Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I [at 0:29] http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/Lady-GaGa/id277293880 http://www.kovideo.net/lady-gaga-s-early-judas-release-tops-itunes-chart-news-Lady-GaGa-3608.html http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/04-19-2011/mcintosh-junior-decides-ditch-GaGa

I guess The Little Monsters were Born (Personal attack removed) That Way! By the way do YOU ALL even have proof that she prefers it to be "Lady Gaga"? I mean in HER OWN VIDEO she spells it "Lady GaGa." How much more proof do you get that she wants it or as you buffoons put it "prefers" it spelled as "GaGa"?

PS: Don't you all dare erase/edit my comments! I'm using my rights of FREE SPEECH which Her Highness, Lady GaGa, has fought for and all you Lil' Monsters have used and abused time and time again so that means that I have the right to say WHATEVER I WANT WHENEVER I WANT WHEREVER I WANT and that includes here! 186.45.93.222 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

1) You have privileges to post here, and they can and will be suspended if you continue to violate WP:CIVIL policy. Consider this your final warning. 2) She consistently uses "Gaga" on her own website in all places where mixed-case is used. It is that same we use here. 3) Wikipedia is explicitly not just a parroting of a subject's own official word on something, but is required to use a multitude of independent sources. Newspapers seem to use "Gaga" as well. DMacks (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weird Al parody

The last sentence in the section dealing with the Weird Al parody of "Born This Way" is misleading and must be removed. It states:

"Journalists point to Gaga's management rather than the artist herself as responsible for the decision."

The given citation links to a Village Voice article that states:

"Now, before we go blaming Gaga and her oh-so-serious artiste-ness for this, let's recall that with the whole James Blunt 'You're Beautiful'/'You're Pitiful' saga the reason Yankovic felt OK releasing the parody for free lay in just who held it up: The suits, not the artist, objected to the remake of Blunt's limp love song. So maybe there's some sort of cash-cow-related holdup, or maybe the people handling Gaga's publishing want residuals from the YouTube ad revenue of 'Polka Face,' which zipped across the Internet after Yankovic performed it live."

However the author was merely making a speculation based on incomplete information. This is made evident by the fact that when Weird Al published the whole story on his website, the author of this article published an update that reads:

"UPDATE: Al speaks--it was Gaga herself who objected! (And he lets us in on the hoops he jumps through in order to do these!)"

Thus, the statement, "Journalists point to Gaga's management rather than the artist herself as responsible for the decision," no longer has a source that actually backs it up. The statement should be deleted, or the citation should be removed and replaced with a citation needed tag. Radports (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yankovic has subsequently announced on his blog that Gaga's manager originally spiked the parody and Lady Gaga has since approved the song.

Bookkeeper already removed this crap. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While im aware this probably conflicts with WP:NOTFORUM, I thought parodies were protected under the first amendment in the us; in other words he could just do it anyways without permission. Or is it out of respect for the artist? AGiorgio08 ^talk 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When a commercial release is considered it needs to be validated by the main artist, to avoid any lawsuit infringements etc. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Godmother to Elton John's child

I think that the fact that she is the godmother to Elton John's son is well worth mentioning on the article as it has been confirmed by Elton John himself in an interview with Barbara Walters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.18.198 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevancy to her life? (present and upcoming) Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm surprised there is no critical remark or controversy analysis of Lady Gaga included in this article. Considering the fact that many other people and events and objects have associated items in their wikipedia articles, why isn't there something mentioned for Lady Gaga? 68.239.176.184 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a paper encyclopedia to report media tid-bits and controversy. Show me one instant which is relevant to her biography, her life. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

public Image

I suggest we add the illuminati speculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.34.111 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speculations have no place in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post ubsurd conspiracy theories by ultra conservative religious fanatics. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gaga as a producer and writer

Gaga has produced and written songs for other high-profile artists, perhaps we could add a sections that details artists, songs or albums she has produced for, or at least acknowledge it more clearly on the career section? These artists include Britney Spears, Beyonce, Semi Precious Weapons, Jennifer Lopez, New Kids on the Block, Adam Lambert, Wale, Kid Cudi, Michael Bolton, The Baseballs. Note that this artists do not perform covers of her songs, but specially written songs for them or discarded songs of her. Specially she is credited as Executive producer of the You Love You album from Semi Precious Weapons. What do you think? afr.mx (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Horns

Okay, a little while ago I'd seen the "horns", and now started hearing about them a lot, especially in regards to Gaga's comments about them. In the "public image" section, I think it would be fair to put a bit about the horns/bones in there. After all, I was kinda confused so I looked up the article, and had to look elsewhere to find info.

With the amount of stir it caused, it seems noteworthy enough to me. could somebody please add it?

Thanksss :) 75.203.214.190 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe for the Born This Way album article, but doesn't make sense here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article specifically trying to find out more information about her horns. It would be useful to have more detail about it here. 82.109.42.210 (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, if there are no objections, I shall do just this (I too came here specifically looking for this info and found nothing and thought, "WTF?"). If a subsequent editor decides to remove the reference to her implants, please justify your revision in this section of the talk page before doing so. Consensus seems to be on the side of including it, and not just for the "Born This Way" album (the implants are not "on" the album, they are on her, and they are permanent medical alterations in her physicality unless she decides someday to have them removed). KDS4444^Talk 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand, ta da! Done. KDS4444^Talk 03:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Biased wording

I don't primarily edit this page, but in reading the "Born This Way" section of the article I came across something that doesn't exactly sound encyclopedic but more so like a fan wrote it, "Rather than welcoming a pop star who talks about religion and morality, some religious spokespeople have attacked Gaga, complaining of the risque packaging and nonjudgemental nature of her message. Admirers, including religious leaders and spokespeople, note that Gaga reaches millions of young people with affirming, spiritual messages that include calls for prudence, chastity and self-respect." I think it's fine to include something like this, it describes something important to her music, that there is a lot of religious overtones and themes, but I think it very much needs to be reworded so that it doesn't sound so biased. Ryanlively (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree, I'll see what I can do. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Small Fix

She has Three Guiness World Records , the third was accomplished during the Grammy night [2011] and it was about Gaga having the most impersonators ever in the history of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.66.118 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC) "She is left-handed[17] and began learning to play piano aged four, ... [next paragraph]... Referring to her "expressive, free spirit", Gaga told Elle magazine "I'm left-handed!"[27]"

Can we change the first part to:

"She began playing piano at age four."

This fixes the grammar, and removes double information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.27.85 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Worked too hard. Splits up with boyfriend.

[3] Apparently she's extremely exhausted.

Splitted up with boyfriend luc Carl, there are sources confirming this. If there was a personal life section, this should be included. YZJay talktome 14:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

curious, why is there no personal life section? 124.72.187.124 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted such addition. Please remember WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY and don't add gossips like this, especially from M.Mirror. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoü and I

To anyone who might be interested in piping in and helping reach a consensus. "Yoü and I" has been nominated for deletion, so express if you support or oppose this nomination. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this nomination. There was this night at NYU that this song reminds me of. I'll never forget it. Thanks--CallMeSuzy • Talk2Me —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Hair

Lady Gaga is going to release a new single called 'Hair' in less than 2 hours. I think it should have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.67.189 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 18:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But you've given 'The Edge of Glory' an article! Why not 'Hair'! Otherwise you may as well not keep 'The Edge of Glory' or 'Hair'! You can't keep one single and not the other! That's just stupid! Both songs are being released on iTunes as a countdown to the 'Born This Way' album! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.67.189 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read NSONGS? The Edge of Glory charted, Hair does not. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. When/if "Hair" is a notable song in its own right, it may have an article. Until then, it may not. "The Edge of Glory" has already charted, which means it has already become a notable song—and may have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't wait for 'The Edge of Glory' to chart though did you. You added it as soon as it was confirmed by Lady Gaga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.67.189 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But their contributors did wait for reliable third-party sources. If you want to waste people time with this crap go to gagapedia. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Record Sales

she has had sales of 22 million albums and 69 million singles, according to this: http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2011/05/album-review-lady-gaga-born-this-way.html can someone edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreammusicfan (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The article quote is, "After scuffling in the New York clubs for a few years, she broke through with her 2008 debut album, 'The Fame,' and follow-up 2009 EP, 'The Fame Monster,' which totaled sales of 22 million albums and 69 million singles." I suppose the singles figure is air-tight; is there going to be a dispute about whether sales of the EP should be excluded from album sales? —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but there is going to be a dispute over the reliability of that site. Leisureblogs? No. That figure is dubious anyway. It's saying she has sold almost 20 million singles between August and now. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a section of a major newspaper—and like a lot of others, the Chicago Tribune has given its columnists a URL containing the string "blog". (Though you're right: in a column and not a hard news story, the fact checking might not be as attentive.) Waiting for corroboration in another source won't hurt, IMHO. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Gaga's genre's are more than just Dance and pop. I would describe her as Glam Pop and i think this section should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.100.242 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Her Religion

She is not a Roman Catholic anymore and in a long time. Is there any source for that category? Otherwise it will have to go.81.193.223.242 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the source is in the article. (where it talks about her upbringing). She still identifies as catholic, as she has stated in multiple interviews, as well as on the HBO special about her (watch her pray as well, and conclude with the Sign of the Cross). She may not be attending mass regularly, but she identifies as Catholic, and that is what is important. Not to mention the Catholic Church still officially recognizes her as Catholic since she has never formally left the church or been excommunicated. Her religion is incoporated heavily throughout her work (seen in music videos "Eh, Eh", "Bad Romance", "Alejandro", "Judas", "Born This Way" as well as in the songs "Judas", "Alejandro", "Bloody Mary", "Black Jesus + Amen Fashion", "Electric Chapel", "You + I", and "Born This Way"). --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversial rumors about being "a guy"

I didn't find anything about the controversial rumors that surfaced a couple of years ago about Lady Gaga being "a man". Who started those rumors and why? Any public medium spoke about it? At some point people didn't seem to talk about anything other than Lady Gaga being a man, a couple of years ago (specially in Facebook and the Sodahead Network). And I'd also like to see more input from her. I do know that several things she mentioned in an interview, gave people the wrong idea. Then she had to deny at all costs that she "is a guy", or that she ever was a guy. I see that she indeed admitted to be bi-sexual which may have contributed to all that gossip. But why isn't that in the article? --Molokaicreeper (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says "When interviewed by Barbara Walters for her annual ABC News special "10 Most Fascinating People of 2009", Gaga dismissed the claim that she is intersex as an urban legend." This is somewhat hidden away, because it is not hugely notable even though Lady Gaga has commented on it, and it is used as an in-joke in the video of "Telephone".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for looking that up for me. I am not a fan, just intrigued about how some rumors come about, good thing it didn't affect her career significantly. Now there's a new rumor about her being "satanist" but I'm not even going to look for information about that. Even if she was, that's her business. Just that the internet has turn into the biggest pool of gossip nowadays. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you must look it up, it is here. This is definitely not notable enough for the article, although it does seem to have become another Internet meme.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you I thought so. This happens with all famous people, someone always has to start a rumor then it moves like gunpowder. The problem nowadays is that, the web makes it too easy for gossip like this to propagate itself. They used to say the same thing about Madonna and her burning crosses in Like A Prayer, they also said horrific stuff about Cher and her outfits, etc. but it wasn't as bad as this since back then, it was in magazines. Now even kids see it in the web, people email it, post it in Facebook, etc. I am glad Wikipedia doesn't rely on this type of gossip though. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should demand that she (or maybe he) produce a long-form birth certificate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I'm suggesting it's about time the article picture got changed to a more recent one? Say at an awards event or something, to reflect the Born This Way era. Anyone agree?--HusseinIED (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Got a free picture in mind? —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure if there is one acceptable to be used but I would not say changed (or replaced) but added. Otr500 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that picture is old, and fairly terrible. Where can we get "free" images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.113.213 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Flickr is one option where photographers have released their images under the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} license. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Voice Type

In this Articles it say that Lady Gaga is a Contralto, that is not true at all you can cleary tell she is a mezzo soprano, and there are loads of articles stating she is a mezzo soprano too — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakoMonster (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about some of these "loads of articles"? If we can verify the as reliable, we can change the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the websites i found stating she is a mezzo soprano >>> http://divadevotee.blogspot.com/2010/10/lady-gaga-vocal-profile.html / http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/lady_gaga/index.shtml / http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/59813451.html?thread=10231565643 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakoMonster (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those are reliable. As a rule, anything at blogspot.com or livejournal.com is not reliable; there's nothing to suggest either of those blogs warrants an exception. That leaves netglimse.com, which is user-editable and does not list its underlying sources, so it's not reliable either. —C.Fred (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fame Ball, Monster Ball

Hi!

I deleted the wording "second headlining tour" from the beginning. Billboard considers Monster Ball the "first headlining"[4] (this has been discussed here, too), so I'd prefer leaving the detail ("Fame Ball is the first actual, but Monster Ball is the first headlining") on Monster Ball's article. Otherwise, the sentence expands way too much, not giving any info relevant enough in that text context. -- Frous (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Once you learn how to think about art, you can teach yourself"

This article cites Gaga as having said "Once you learn how to think about art, you can teach yourself." I've googled around, and although I see this quote widely attributed to her, I cannot find what the ultimate source is. Presumably she said this to some reporter at some point, while discussing why she left college, but I cannot find this interview offhand. Can anyone help me locate the original source of this quote? Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Old Picture

The picture should be updated. She looks nothing like that anymore. I suggest this picture link http://www.bananaq8.com/wp-content/uploads/01/lady-gaga-grammys-2011-520.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainpinky1 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot utilize copyrighted images when the subject still living. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Undoing relevent, pertinent, and well documented information.

With all due respect I am not sure why the information was chosen by the owners of this article not to be included but I contest ownership, and I would like to know who the owners claim to be. I say that because the summary stated "we dnt add tht". If the reason is because of flawed information that is one thing but "if" world renown" information is excluded for some personal reason I would like to know why and to whom the authority is given. This is not an unfair request and I am not trying to be unreasonable but this is an encyclopedia and the information is not just trivia but very relevant to an article on this person. Since the information is not being contested for violating BLP policies, the "undoing" could have been at least mentioned on the talk page with better reasoning. Valid reasoning can prevail when apparently unwarranted reversions can cause unneeded discussions. Otr500 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No its because we dont add information like twitter and facebook fans, statistics which can be manipulated to the core by fans. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given this some thought and you know you might just be right. There could be a few hundred thousand YouTube fans logging on and off every few seconds for the entire year but it might still be hard to log 1 B-i-l-l-i-o-n views. Might be possible with Twitter with only 10 million followers and the same with facebook. That is not the point nor, contrary to the beliefs of some, is it the point of this vehicle. Proof of this can be found at Wikipedia:Attribution that states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—that is, a comprehensive compendium of knowledge. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. If the source of the information is doubted, which is unlikely, and probably covered by more than the two listed, then this would be valid reasoning. The fact that there might be some mind blowing conspiracy to produce one billion and twenty million (give or take a few million) errors, is not really relevant. The fact of the figures being true or untrue, manipulated or not, according to the above, leaves three other policies to consider. 1)- verifiability, 2)- no original research, and 3)- neutral point of view, and please lets not forget WP:BLP which certainly is not questioned.

If the sources listed, which were not called into question, is considered reliable, then #1 and #2 has been satisfied. As far as I know it is not usual or customary to delete information because of #3 without a tag and certainly with the reasoning stated, "No its because we dont add information like twitter and facebook fans, statistics which can be manipulated to the core by fans". If this is true then there should be some reliable source to add this information in an encyclopedic way to satisfy #3. Jimbo Wales stated, "But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide."

In conclusion: We either have a vehicle that proclaims to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit (of course following the policies and guidelines), or this is false. If issues concerning the above policies and guidelines are are not called into question, considering the information is encyclopedic and relevant, please provide an argument for undoing the edit that has more weight than what was provided. Otr500 (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got to honestly say, Otro, you've written a big mass of nothing. I can't make out your point at all, and this bulk of writing seems unwarranted and bit ridiculous. Sorry, but Legolas is right about the statistics thing. Please halt any further useless discussion of a largely agreed upon fact.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear of your comprehension problem Naton. I do hope it is not permanent. I hope you don't mind if I overlook your polite directive not be an editor on Wikipedia. This may not have been your intention but it certainly was viewed as such. The point is that excluding information because it is fancruft or recentism is understandable. Since 2009 there was valid reasoning to exclude the information. The problem is that the information has surpassed "fancruft" as well as "recentism". I am" not a fan of Lady Gaga (at all) but the information is reported by reliable international sources. It could be considered as an "indiscriminate collections of information" but then so could a lot of the information (man or woman?) in the article. The information is notable and I feel relevant. WP:NPOV includes, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The possibility that a site can be manipulated is lost considering the numbers reported, the length of time, and that the sources used follows "material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". My argument is that excluding information of such magnitude is being biased and certainly not fair. The whole world (or a large portion) knows about it ("global fame") but Wikipedia choosing to ignore it is not encyclopedic. Continually listing the wrong birthday because the sources are questionable is one thing. Refusing to include information that has international sources has no reasoning. Of course neither does attempting to direct editors not to approach any subject which is a restrictive practice. Consensus can change is a fundamental part of Wikipedia and if I choose to explore if this has occurred it is within my right. Part of her global fame is certainly in part because of the internet. Adding or deleting information because "...information like twitter and facebook fans, statistics which can be manipulated to the core by fans." is not the issue. The information has been provided by reliable sources, not twitter or facebook, even if it originated from there. This is a point of my reasoning and that Legolas2186 replied concerning. If the information came from twitter, facebook, or a fan site it should be excluded but when information is provided by multiple reliable sources (even internationally) then the reasoning of manipulation is not relevant.

• I looked at the article edit history and your statement, "...useless discussion of a largely agreed upon fact" is not correct. The information had been excluded at various times for various reasons and I felt it could now be included. If you don't agree this is fine, if you have consensus this is better, if I violate some policy or guideline I can understand but there may be other editors that feel this information can now be included and a way and to find out is to explore. Inquiring why an edit was undone with a dubious edit summary is a sure fire way to get a reaction. This is covered under Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary and Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes. If the information is included in the article or not is actually irreverent to me. Trying to stop a discussion (far more unwarranted and against policy) becomes more of a problem, which also was part of my above comments including article ownership, so I would like to politely request that in the future you not do this. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

Her name is Stefania Giovanna (not Joanne) Angelina Germanotta.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110611/ap_on_en_mu/eu_italy_lady_gaga_8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The TV Guide interview states plainly, "Birth Name: Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta."[5] The new source, from the AP wire, says "She also proudly cited her Italian roots — saying she was really named Stefania Giovanna Angelina Germanotta." With that hedge, is this enough of a source to change the listed name? —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

BMi and personal life

Anyone think putting the dates her songs were registered as important? Also, why is there no personal life section? Other artists article has one, how can gaga be an exception? 120.37.14.4 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Gaga has never spoken openly about her personal life and it is deemed unencyclopedic. Adding random names of boyfriends is not wanted here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

is bmi important? 120.37.14.4 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For the song articles, not her bio page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Shouldn't "rock" be added to the genres? I mean she's written enough rock ballads and got freakin Brian May to perform in her song. Plus she draws inspiration form Led Zeppelin, Queen... etc. I think it's about time it was added.--HusseinIED (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, dance is still her primary genre. Occasional rock music projects and songs does not make rock her genre. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

New photo

Any photo will do, as long as it's showing her new hairstyle (black bangs), and clear enough to be recognizable. If playing a video in my iPhone (whose screen is about the same size as the image right now) playing one of her performance and I took a screen shot, then rotated it to portrait mode, zoom to her , then took another screenshot and uploaded it on my computer to wiki commons, can it be used? 120.37.14.4 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because you are neither the owner of the video, nor will be of that photo and Wikipedia does not accept non-free images for living people. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In the beginning of this discussion page, someone said Flickr is a good place to find "free" photos. If it's true, perhaps this photo is good? http://www.flickr.com/photos/62636174@N08/5815474643/ Squidoh (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not a free image. You can see at the bottom right of the page it says "All rights reserved." We need images where it says "Some rights reserved." — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Are dates necessary?

I, personally, really don't like the dates being in the title of each subsection: it makes me seem too... too... regimental. Like "1984-2004: Early life", why not just "Early life"? The Judy Garland FA works like this and the article has a much better feel to it. Stephenjamesx (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates are present in most of the musician bio FA articles and I personally find them immensely necessary. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 - Present

A picture would be perfect to support this part of the article. 119.153.48.121 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Free images haven't been available for this era yet, but I'll see to it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Compared to some other information in this section, her recent and well-received performance on Saturday Night Live in May 2011 is worth a mention. Cite: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/television/Lady-Gaga-Rocked-SNL-122408504.html Hutch (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Once you learn how to think about art, you can teach yourself"

This article cites Gaga as having said "Once you learn how to think about art, you can teach yourself." I've googled around, and although I see this quote widely attributed to her, I cannot find what the ultimate source is. Presumably she said this to some reporter at some point, while discussing why she left college, but I cannot find this interview offhand. Can anyone help me locate the original source of this quote? Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga as a gay icon

Gaga is increasingly becoming THE gay icon. It is my belief that a page should be started, alike Madonna, Judy and Janet have, titled Lady Gaga as a gay icon. I have been working on this, yet haven't touched on it for a few months and the thing is a work-in-progess. (Bare in mind if you do look: there's a lot that I want modify, change or add to!)

With her recent stand-up in Rome - I mean, she's even protesting against inequality miles away from her home - she's definitely becoming more of a gay icon by the day. I think she definitely could warrant a separate article, especially with all the things I've managed to squeeze out in my work-in-progress: User:Stephenjamesx/Lady Gaga as gay icon. Check it out and give me some opinions. :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The only major hurtle is that you must have a reliable third-party source (preferably several) which label her specifically as a "gay icon", and not just mentioning her ties to the community. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

here's a quick search

and here's one restricted to news articles The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been affirmed by both

the LGBT community:

• 1
• 2
• 3

and third-party sources:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Stephenjamesx (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I still believe this is premature. Let at least 5 years go by, then we can surely make a call on her statusquo. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep on working on it until that day then. ;) Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I would agree she's much hotter property within the gay/lesbian community today than Madonna, and her stage artistry and offstage activities interact with gay and gender issues (including transgender culture) in a much more interesting way than Madonna's ever done. A journalist put it last year that "Lady Gaga takes female stereotypes and images to such outrageous and duplicitous lengths that she seems to deliberately put her own /social/ gender in question" - that's spot on I think and a vital clue to why she seems to pick up so much with groups that are 'other', queer or sexually/mediatically marginalized in some sense.Strausszek (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with everything you said, but my main issue is the recentism of her activities. Time will tell how much impact she will have over the community so that's my point that we can wait till 5 years ie till 2013, then may be see how we can take the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems an article about her relationship with the community or gender issues or whatever (even if we don't use the term "gay icon" in the title) will be warranted far sooner than that. I do see your point, but an arbitrary historical relevance test isn't necessary to establish that it's an integral part of who she is as an artist -- to the extent that an entire album was named after a very conscious attempt to create a gay anthem. I'm not saying we need an article split this second, just giving my thoughts. Spieren (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Musical influences inconsistency

Lady Gaga's popular musical influences are listed in two separate sections in this article--in the third paragraph in the lead, and then again down the page under the musical influences section. But, they don't align. The lead mentions Elton John, but he isn't mentioned at all later down the page. The musical influences section mentions Whitney Houston and Britney Spears, but those two artists are not mentioned in the lead paragraph. How can this be made consistent--thoughts? In my opinion, it makes most sense to mention all those artists (Bowie, John, Queen, Houston, Jackson, Madonna, & Spears(questionable as she is relatively newer compared to the previous six acts) in the lead, and add Elton John down in the musical influences section. Also mentioned, but not in the first sentence of musical influences like the others, is Debbie Harry and Grace Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.47.130 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to mention every one of her influences in the lead. The lead just has to say that Lady Gaga was influenced by glam rock artists and pop artists. Giving a few examples always helps (like Madonna and MJ for pop). I added Elton John in the Musical style and influences section, with a reference. WIKIPEDIAN Penguin ^(♫♫) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Scamming Japanese Earth Quake Victims

Lady Gaga is being sued for keeping some of the proceeds from her "We Pray for Japan" bracelets, rather than giving it all to charity, Business Insider reported. According to 1-800-LAW-FIRM, which filed the class action suit Saturday, the $3.99 shipping charge was inflated, and only part of the money from each $5 bracelet reached Japan.

I tried to add this to the article but it was locked. This is significant as it shows Gaga is involved in criminal actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.90.32 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is already present. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed yet. Gaga is not guilty of scamming people as of now and therefore is of no relevance to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.18 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jewish roots

Germanotto (and Bissett - the mother) are mostly jewish names, how about mentioning that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.177.152 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not true, as one is Italian and the other is Scottish. She is of catholic upbringing, and has never stated having any Jewish hertiage, nor are there any reliable sources saying so. GermnonattA (not O) is her last name, and it is a mostly Catholic name, and Italian. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Germanotta is not an Italian name. I checked ancestry.com and only a handful of people in all of America have this last name. When I checked ancestry.it (Italian site) the first hit was for a Cohen (Jewish name). Most likely Germanotta was really Germanotto. While Stefani was raised a Catholic, my guess is that her roots are Jewish. Many Jewish families in Europe switched to Christianity over the years and some don't even know their family has Jewish roots. I am Italian and I know for a fact that Germanotta is not an Italian name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.95.248 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact that she is not Jewish, your work is original research and has no reliable sources. Unless there is a reliable source where GaGa or someone else says she is of Jewish descent, it cannot be added to the article. Upon my own original research, I have found her last name to be of southern italian origin, but that as well cannot be added to the article without a reliable source. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bisset name is of Celtic origin, present in Scotland and Ireland, and anglicised as McKeown, McEoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinezmcgough (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bisset is also of French origins and Gaelicised as Mac Eoin. Germanotta as a surname can be found on the island of Sicily 86.42.191.208 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I know Gaga is Catholic but perhaps her ancestors were Jewish? There are some Italian Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.18 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There are no reliable sources stating such and she herself has never discussed it. So even if she is of Jewish origin (which would have to be extremely distant) it cannot be in the article without PROPER RELIABLE SOURCES-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk)