Talk:Lady Gaga

The hermaphrodite thing needs to be addressed (--> she isnt)

Look, it's taken on a life of it's own when you have *Barbra Walters* asking Gaga on National TV in an interview, not only that but in a FREAKIN AD for the aforementioned interview, if she's a hermaphrodite. Okay, that is pretty huge and people go to this site for information, so it should get a passing mention with how she's been asked and how she has disproved it. Continuing to flat-out ignore it is irresponsible in people's search for enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.187.63 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Gaga was one of the most viewed articles on wiki in 2009, and I get the feeling at least some of those people were looking for answers to this. If you're talking about not posting rumours, I point to the Tom Cruise article that points out how homosexuality rumours circulated for him and how he sued people over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.187.63 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to a news story documenting the interview? If it's gotten to the level that newspapers (and not E! or TMZ or the like) are writing about Walters asking her about it, then yes, it may be time to revisit whether it's encyclopedic. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually,a quick look at the references from this article shows that it already cites supposedly non-encyclopedic sources "E! online" and "PopMatters.com" for other matters not related to Lady Gaga's penis rumors. It doesn't seem right that such sites are OK to use so long as certain fans and apologists don't find the material offensive, and then rejected if they do. 86.156.245.248 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You can listen to the full interview here though the only rumor mentioned is the speculation on her sexual orientation. The only publication which talked on the subject is a small publication:Much has been speculated about the singer, including the rumor that she is a hermaphrodite and bisexual. Gaga confirmed the latter during the "10 Most Fascinating People" interview, though she appeared visibly flustered when Walters asked her if she had engaged in lesbian sex. The willingness to go into open court and sue someone for monetary damages, by the way, is quite different from a rumor simply existing, it implies a severe impact on the individual. The same thing happened to Liberace. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But is she really a hermaphrodite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it cannot be proven that she is, the article needs to read that she is not—or just omit the subject entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe put in that there is some speculation but it is unsure? I tried looking at Wikipedia to see if I could find out... It might make some people less confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that type of speculation isn't allowed in a WP:BLP. See the warning at the top of this page that states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." To put that type of info in any BLP requires iron-clad sources that spend around 0% of their time "speculating" (good luck finding that source since they all spend lots of time doing that these days). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "unfortunate" about this policy? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate for anyone looking to Wikipedia for an answer to questions of this type. Yes, we are all aware that this is a feature and not a bug. - De Guerre (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

She never confirmed it, so leave it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

She did confirm it in an interview in Australia that she is not, nor never was, a hemaphrodite. It was posted earlier in the article, but I'm not sure if it's still there. Here's the link:

http://www.mtv.com.au/news/e660034f-gaga-talks-penis-rumours/ Esprix (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is settled, mentioning it happened isn't speculation. We can simply say rumors existed about her sexuality but they were denied. As true as it gets. --uKER (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the above link is that she doesn't actually deny that she has a penis, Instead, when asked a direct question about it, she uses almost evasive language, claiming that her "vagina is offended" and that the subject is "too low brow for me to even discuss" and that she would "rather talk about my fans and my music than a silly rumour". A simple "no" would have sufficed...but was not forthcoming. Does anyone have citations for a clear denial of the penis? (86.148.109.94 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I believe she cleary denied this when she talks about it in a Noisevox interview that was published on YouTube September 17, 2009. In part 5 of 5 of the interview about 29 seconds in she states "I'm still latching on to the fact that people think I'm sexy because this is like a new thing for me... because for the first year of my career everybody called me a tranny robot and thought I had a little penis." When the interviewer points out that in another interview she did say she had a "donkey dick," she acknowledges that she did say that. She refers to the public's reaction of her at first as a "sort of weird place" and now "regular guys" think she's sexy. I hope this helps and because it's a question that many interviewers ask her over and over, it probably should be addressed. I am one who went to Wikipedia to see if that rumor could be dispelled but I had a really hard time finding that information, especially since in several interviews and a concert, she seemingly admitted that she did to those who did not pick up on her sarchasm. I can find those videos if needed.--Swishertx (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable approach: to state that there was rumour of a penis but she has disavowed it. If there are no objections forthcoming, I will add this into the article shortly. I understand that her success and popularity in 2009 is largely attributable to this rumour, but of course this is a difficult thing to prove and even harder to find a reputable source to cite. If anyone has one please post it here. 86.156.245.248 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One can only laugh at the idea that to become an internatiotal superstar all one has do is create some rumours of sexuality. This arcticle has to apply wp:blp. SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If anything is libelous it is not suggesting she is a hermaphrodite, it is suggesting that this is the sole cause of her success. But I definitely feel it deserves mentioning that the rumours exist(ed), but also clearly state that she has denied them since. And, to be pedantic, this is not a case of her sexuality, but of her sex (gender). 145.94.78.201 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it completely denied in a direct way?--Diforeverf (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is five messages above yours. --uKER (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"It’s honestly too low brow for me to even discuss." I think the same should apply to the Wikipedia article, per the Richard Gere precedent. Stupid rumours have no place in BLPs. Fences&Windows 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But this time it's rather a brilliant marketing gag than a stupid rumor, and there is no reason to regard it as irrelevant. --KnightMove (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. Michael Jacksons rumours, the ones he himself invented to fuel his popularity, are addressed. Why not one that for all possibilities is quite likely to be true? In fact the number one reason behind the refuting of pictures, video, her previous own statements she removed from her blog (ignoring that you can't delete something from the internet) are somehow outweighed because "she says so". If any POV is happening it's that biggest, and seemingly ONLY, source those against it have are that she and her manager have denied it. Which isn't allowed as disputation regardless. On any articles. In fact self-proclamation as fact from the person/people the article is ABOUT is specifically disallowed here on Wikipedia. 60.230.198.186 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

• I've asked for opinions here:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rumour about Lady Gaga. Fences&Windows 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That thread has since been archived (there's not much there, really): Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive78#Rumour_about_Lady_Gaga 66.58.210.21 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Snopes is a reliable source or not, but they have a page about this: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/ladygaga.asp --137.227.96.21 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The footage of her on MTV's Boiling Points (well before she was Lady Gaga) should pretty effectively put this rumor to rest. She looks like a run-of-the-mill, full-of-herself, 20 year-old girl with a big schnoz. Since her success, she may very well have had work done to enhance her androgynous liking, but to fuel such a completely unwarranted, unfounded, and absurd rumor on Wikipedia would be intellectually irresponsible.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources then it should be addressed regardless of what her fans want. Gune (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be included, in her new video telephone she even plays on the claims, showing us she hasn't got one. sources: 1 2 3 4 5 ... there are plenty more on the web too. Some sources from the time: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There are so more on the web too, I just did a quick search. So why isn't it on there if she has adressed this herself, in the video. Why? This is not a fansite. Aren't they reliable sources? It only needs one line about the rumour, the denial, the video... finished.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It already is included. See the last paragraph of the "2008 - present" section. Nymf _hideliho! 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions the claim, but uses the word intersexual. This is a non-story, but needs to be addressed because of the amount of coverage that it has received in the media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think more coverage is needed, or are we just discussing whether to link to Intersexuality, Intersexuality#Hermaphrodite, or Hermaphrodite? The last article mentions that intersex is the preferred current term, so I agree with the current linking to intersexuality (and I feel there is enough coverage currently). —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Influences of Lady Gaga's are

Yoko Ono, Elvis, David Bowie, Morrissey, Queen, Robert Smith, Robert Plant, Freddy Mercury, Prince, Rod Stewart, Thomas Dolby, Depeche Mode, The Faint, Radiohead, Beck, Franz Ferdinand, The Cure, Nine Inch Nails, Grace Slick & Jefferson Airplane, Queen, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Talking Heads,The Scissor Sisters, The Dresden Dolls, Mika, She Wants Revenge, Janis Joplin, Jenny Lewis, Joy Division, New Order, The Killers, Justin Warfield, Chuck Berry, BuckCherry, Billy Idol, White Stripes, Strokes, Blondie, Pat Benatar, Rilo Kiley, Elton John, Jerry-Lee Lewis, John Lennon, The Beatles. Drag queens in general. Jimmy Choo. Hot Groupie chicks. Hairspray *not the musical. Black Eyeliner. Strippers. Sequins. D-I-S-C-O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonroseisihot (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At this rate it would be quicker to name who did not influence Lady Gaga. Some sourcing would be needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You want a source, here you go:http://www.myspace.com/ladygaga —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaGalover13 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're quite right, the list above is word for word the same as the one on Lady Gaga's MySpace profile.[1] Usually, this would be seen as a self published source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhhh! so does that mean it can't go in the article? (I'm kinda new to this whole wikipedia thing.)

New picture

Can't we place a new picture in the infobox. 222.79.158.77 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could this picture work? YZJay 13:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)

Any new image for the infobox would need to be copyright free, of good technical quality and show Lady Gaga's face clearly. The current image meets all of these requirements. Since this is a high profile article, any proposed change to the infobox image should be discussed on the talk page to establish a consensus, rather than risking edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

would Gaga Bad Romance.jpg work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.24.194.186 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaga_Bad_Romance.jpg would need cropping to remove the blue background. Personally, I still prefer the current image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposed picture above really isn't a valid replacement. It's blurry, distorted and you can barely make out her face. Nymf _hideliho! 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

what about 1264983243 lady-gaga-blog.jpg? Her face is clear and it's not blurry. 117.24.194.186 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that on WP or Commons? If so, could you link it please. I can't find that filename in search, but it could just be me. File links need to be [[:File:Example.jpg]] which produces File:Example.jpg. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That image should be speedily deleted. A blatant copyvio. Gaga Bad Romance.jpg seems like a valid choice, if someone could just sharpen it a little. I disagree with Nymf that "blurry, distorted and you can barely make out her face". Her face is more visible in this one than the curtrent picture. The current pic is so bad that it cannot even point out that it is Gaga or some one else. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

1264983243 lady-gaga-blog.jpg was uploaded today. Not bad, but it gives the source as usmagazine.com. Is this really copyright free?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio much? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to come from here. Almost certainly unsuitable per WP:NFCC, attribution given to Getty Images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well its most certainly a speedy delete, let the Dutch admins sort it. Meanwhile, I'm trying to get teh copyright for some images from the Monster Ball UK, there at flickr. Quite good. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No matter what, the current image needs to be replaced.it shows lady gaga on 2008, on that time her face was completely different from now.its either the Bad romance picture or the Grammy red carpet picture. 117.24.194.186 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, no. It's not even a year old. The infobox image is meant to depict the subject of the article, which this one does just fine. If it's going to be replaced, it needs to be an improvement. Nymf _hideliho! 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless.jpg. I uploaded the image to commons and added it in the infobox of the article. At present the image is being modified at Graphics lab of Wikipedia, hence donot revert it. Please be patient as teh sharpness of the image is being modified. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is an edited version that I made using photo editing $oftware. It is hard to get good detail from this image as it is quite blurred. Sharpening it up too much would exaggerate the JPEG noise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

this new pic looks great!!! i don't know how much gaphics lab can help, but it sure did help the previous image. it was pathetic as hell, and they made it so damn good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.217.96 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:GL has done amazing job and edited the later file to File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless-re.jpg. Its sharp and good now to be utilized as the main image, let's see what they do with the other one. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Haus of GaGa

I just saw that another Haus of GaGa page has been created, and it seems to be ignored. 222.79.158.77 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC

why is it that every haus of gaga page gets deleted. 117.24.194.186 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Album sold ...

Sorry 'im new in wikipedia but It's official Lady Gaga has sold 10 milion + one milion albums worldwide and so I think it's necessari to change 8 milion to over eleven milions ok? AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not official. All you have is Lady Gaga's word and various webpages quoting this. See WP:SPS. Nymf _hideliho! 18:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know but I think that the fame has been certified 3x platinum by the RIAA and so is one milion more than 9.5 you've said first ... I think is better put 9 milion copies AriandaGAGA (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Arianda GAGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, how many of the third million of US copies were in the eight million figure? We can't engage in that sort of synthesis with reported sales figures; that sort of original research is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok ... thanks ... AriandaGAGA (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} Lady Gaga article: Her debut album 'The Fame' has sold over 10 million and has been certified diamond http://musicfascination.com/2010/02/27/lady-gaga%E2%80%99s-debut-album-certified-diamond/ Kazozh5 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)moved from user talk page by [[::User:Thesevenseas|Thesevenseas]] (talk · contribs) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This uses Twitter, which is a self published source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

She never went to the Juilliard audition

Here she says she got nervous before the audition: she did not attend the audition and instead went to acting class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMwPU6C1rvI&feature=player_embedded. In addition there is no full-time programme for 11-year-olds at Juilliard, it is a weekly Saturday class; so had she auditioned and got in she could have gone to her private school as well as Juilliard so it's misleading to say 'She was all set to join Juilliard but instead attended The Convent of the Sacred Heart' - one could easily attend both. Here's Juilliard's info for potential attendants below university age: http://www.juilliard.edu/precollege/general.html. For what it's worth, I think she's great, but it's misleading to mention Juilliard at all in the article.KarlBattery (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Association with Beyonce

Hello. Although I'm not a big fan of Dance music, I thought that Lady Gaga has been associated with Beyonce for Video Phone, so I can't find why this is not correct in order to erase this. Please inform me if I'm mistaken. Thank you very much, --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

The "associated acts" field is not supposed to be used for artists who did one or two collaborations together, however, it could be worthy of a mention in the article. I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable of the subject, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in the article for Beyonce is the name of Lady Gaga in the associated acts. --Patriot8790 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. I'm not an expert on the subject, so it would be best to wait for someone who is. However, I can't see any problems mentioning it in the article if it isn't already. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Associated acts" and "Genre" often cause infobox arguments. Overall, Beyoncé is not an associated act of Lady Gaga.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple reason. ASsociated acts are people who have been playing for a long time with the main artist, in this case Lady Starlight and Space Cowboy. No one else is even worthy of mention at all. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial thingamabobs

Legolas, you reverted me, which I'm fine with- I won't edit war with you and I don't doubt you know the article better than I do, but I just wonder if these "tabloidy" things might be worth a mention if they're documented in decent sources? to give an example, Lily Cole has done nude appearances, but they are well documented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

'I made Lady GaGa' - Wendy Starland

I found this intresting and may help with GAGA's early days. Source (from the mirror which is relible enough)- http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/03/13/i-made-lady-gaga-the-girl-who-changed-stefani-germanotta-s-life-with-a-phone-call-115875-22107298/

EXTRAXT Below:

Triple Brit Award winner GaGa wrote: “I will proclaim my loyalty and eternal thanks to the incredible Wendy Starland for discovering me. Wendy Starland changed my life. Wendy was the angel that fulfilled my promise to my father one year before, on my 19th birthday.

“Without Wendy’s remarkable ears, hearing through my rough-around-the-edges college band, the eyes to see through 15 pounds I would lose over the next three months, and the heart to reveal to me one of her most credible contacts, I may never have become Lady GaGa.

Triple Brit Award winner GaGa wrote: “I will proclaim my loyalty and eternal thanks to the incredible Wendy Starland for discovering me. Wendy Starland changed my life. Wendy was the angel that fulfilled my promise to my father one year before, on my 19th birthday.

“Without Wendy’s remarkable ears, hearing through my rough-around-the-edges college band, the eyes to see through 15 pounds I would lose over the next three months, and the heart to reveal to me one of her most credible contacts, I may never have become Lady GaGa.

Eyeliner and Cigarettes(User/Talk/Sign) 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Intersex rumor addressed in new Telephone video

"I knew she didn't have a dick!" -Prison guard stripping Gaga. Nothing formal or conventional to address a rumor, still she addressed it. I was thinking this should be in the article somewhere? Tommy2010 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

About where in the video does this come up? It might be good to mention, from the angle of her laughing off the rumour. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone is on YouTube/Vevo at [2] Lady Gaga is led into a prison cell at the start of the video. She is locked into the cell, and stripped down to a pair of fishnet stockings. She climbs up the bars of the cell. As two of the guards are walking away, one of them comments at 1:10 "I told you she didn't have a dick". This the clearest reference yet to the ongoing "story" about Lady Gaga's endowment, and is mentioned in Telephone (song). Not sure if it should be mentioned in the main article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

She says flat out that she isn't intersexual in the Barbara Walters' interview. I don't think any further coverage is necessary. Nymf _hideliho! 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good point. Ha, my bad. Tommy2010 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely worthy of a mention in the song article, but not in her biography, especially given the aforementioned interview. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bio

The bio should be updated for her new single Telephone --Arathun (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. It is unlikely that we will stop the debate about Lady Gaga's membership of the male/female club, but the main article is already clear on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Arathun (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2008-present section

Isn't this section just going on and on, an enormous one? We can easily cut down the detailed explanations of all her performances and single chart achievements which are more suitable for the album/singles pages. Thoughts? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. Just the important information regarding her singles/albums should go on her biography, and the detailed explanations should be on her singles pages. But that means we will have to constantly change EVERY single page she has, which can be a task because of "wars" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.60 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob Fusari's lawsuit

Today, news broke that Gaga's former boyfriend and collaborator Rob Fusari was suing her for $30 million. [3] This seems fairly notable and a pretty big turn of events (he didn't seem to harbor any ill will towards her in earlier interviews), but I'm unsure how to integrate it into the article... perhaps someone else could help? The Mach Turtle (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of mainstream media coverage this is picking up today, eg here, here, it should definitely be in the article. Only time will tell what becomes of it, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid music

Can anyeone tell me what is "mermaid Music". a website say's it's owned by lady gaga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.79.159.43 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid Music LLC is Lady Gaga's production company. Robert Fusari's lawsuit (see above) is against Mermaid Music.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)