Talk:Lady Gaga

Criticism

This article doesn't really mention criticism of Lady Gaga's act, e.g. that her works are derivative, or "ripped off" from other stars like Grace Jones. Critical reception is relevant to the article, especially since so much of her act is based around her persona, not just her music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasfrau (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It would not be a very good article if it did mention that kind of criticism, which is stupid crap. Does Gaga work or not? Has she credited these other people? Would she still be Gaga without them? DinDraithou (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Those criticisms came from primary source, ie from Grace Jones, MIA etc, who criticized Gaga. Surely, they of all people don't have any business criticizing others, and Wikipedia doesnot endorse peer criticism. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of criticism in this article. Too much actually, and this is not a magazine or rumor-gossip hate site. Wikipedia is meant to display facts about a topic in encyclopedic form. If Madonna were in the encyclopedia it would not mention her banned video "Like A Prayer". If Michael Jackson were in an encyclopedia they wouldn't focus on where he got his style. There is no proof or evidence that Lady Gaga derived her style from the so called Grace Jones. If there is proof post it here. Lady Gaga and Akon say they have developed the Gaga style from Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, and Elvis. Now again we need proof, such as Gaga admitting to such. But again this small note would never ever be in a real encyclopedia which this is. Criticism on Lady Gaga's efforts to evoke rights for homosexuals wouldn't be listed either in an encyclopedia, nor her rumors of being a hermaphrodite, amputating a leg, being concieved by Madonna, and making religion a subject for all would never ever be listed in an encyclopedia. This isn't an article about Hitler, its about a young woman who sings and uses eccentric styles, like many other artists. --Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaga has not received uniformly positive reviews for her work. Criticism differs from hate, even "rumor-gossip hate." Take this quote from a review in the Guardian:

"I'm defying all the preconceptions we have of pop artists," [Gaga] recently told one journalist, seemingly confident of a place in the history books as the world's first pretty female singer performing synthesiser-heavy R&B-influenced pop. "I'm very into fashion," she clarified, all previous pretty female singers having apparently performed their synthesiser-heavy R&B-influenced pop clad in stuff they grabbed at random from the George at Asda half-price sale.

Wikipedia regularly includes links to articles about so-and-so being "number XX in Time Magazine's greatest artists of XYZ." The "personal style" section already has criticism of her fashion sense. Sartorial issues cannot be proved, but it can be proved that so-and-so, from respected publication X, has mentioned it. ––aliasfrau

Sorry, but I have forgotten a comma, thanks for noticing. I'm just saying that if you want to have a more grounded article it shouldn't include gossip stories and rumors. Criticism on an album, music, or music video would be fine since that is the criticism an artist deserves. Not personality disses. Let's get real. Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Agree, this section is totally pointless as it is based on opinions not facts, and it seems like it was added by a hater not from a neutral point of view. I just edited it to make it shorter and correct the spelling mistakes. I really think it should be deleted, she has received positive reviews as well as negative ones from people, artists and critics alike. All of her albums and most of her her songs received positive reviews. And this section portrays her as being panned by critics, artists and all people except her fans, thus avoiding the "neutral point of view" policy.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Favorable opinions have been added to the reception section. Language has been neutralized.––Aliasfrau (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of what? Her life? Album reviews should be added to the album's article and reviews of her fashion and persona should be added to the "Public Image" section. Otherwise, why don't we put all of her singles' reviews, album reviews and live performance reviews on her article... no wait a second, why don't we put what all the people in the world think about her everything on this article???? This is completely pointless and stupid. The editor disliking her doesn't mean he can write whatever he wants on her article.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaga's roots... and work with Nick Knight

The page mentions Gaga being the child of Italian American parents. However her mother is named "Cynthia Bissett" which is a name from a Scots/Irish family, or a form of the French name Bessette. Her dad really seems to be the biggest influence on her and we don't hear her talk about her mother that much. But i think it's important to note her mother isn't Italian to understand where Lady G comes from. She's a Bissett from Ohio which is interesting. If it's the Scots Bissett then her mother is possibly protestant versus the very catholic Italian side of her family too. JG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnygie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, but the problem appears to be that her mother's family aren't quite sure of their origins. Back in March a Bissett relative of Gaga's added to the article that her mother was of French, German and English ancestry, and provided a source, a pedigree hosted at Rootsweb, going back to 17th century France. Another editor removed the source as "unreliable". I restored it once but didn't look it over carefully.

Here it is.

Later I did examine it, and found it to be speculative before the mid-19th century, alleging that the Bissetts were French Canadian Bessettes, descended from a "Jean Brisetout" (1642-1707), born in "Cahors, Lot, Midi-Pyrénées, France". Unlikely, unless they have old family traditions. Given their region they are far more likely of direct Scotch-Irish origin. Bissett is a Scottish surname (associated with Aberdeenshire?) with possible but unprovable Norman French origins, the "root" not being agreed upon. Several of the large Gaelic clans appear to have small Bissett septs, but what that means or says nobody can really say. Independent origins? A dispersed French (or possible Flemish) family? The Scottish monarchs invited plenty to Scotland and not all were able to form proper clans. In any case, the Scots pass on "clan names" and surnames more or less randomly below the level of the nobility, and genetic research has shown they are typically made up of multiple lineages.

Gaga is rumoured to have contacted the College of Arms to discover what she can, and I hope they are capable of helping her without misleading her into believing she might have "noble" ancestry. So do we all. But it's largely about where it actually is to be found in our family trees. They may direct her to the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scotland's so-called "authority" (incompetent pushovers). We'll see what comes of it. DinDraithou (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All of this above seems to make sense. The surname Bissett does appear to be French or English, depending on the original spelling of the name, however Lady Gaga has specifically stated numerous times that she is Italian on both sides of her family. It seems unlikely that she would lie about such a thing although Gaga does seem closer to her father than her mother, but wouldn't that make her mother upset if she's always constantly saying she's Italian-American and nothing else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.149 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the cutest things about Gaga is her working class background and resulting glamourous insecurities. Her father's family may be from Jersey City, of Sicilian origin from Palermo,[1] but her mother was born and raised in West Virginia, although the more midwestern Northern Panhandle.[2] To a city girl like Gaga that may feel like the worst thing, or who knows what she really thinks, if she has the time for it now. Hard work eventually made it possible for them to move from Great Kills to the Upper West Side, and they were able to send Gaga to Convent of the Sacred Heart when she was something like 13, if memory serves (read it somewhere).

The public have gotten this wrong impression she's from a wealthy family, judging from where she was educated and her being so into fashion. It doesn't look like her fault, after mentioning in early interviews that she "didn't belong to the same social class" as some of the other girls at Convent, and that she went to NYU on student loans, which she paid off after getting signed. DinDraithou (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to tell if the rootsweb source at [3] is reliable or original research. This is not an ideal source for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's what I should have thought before restoring it that one time. It looks reliable enough for a few generations, where sources are provided, but the rest is not the work of a professional genealogist or scholar. That said, the researcher is not uneducated and should be thanked for her efforts. DinDraithou (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rootsweb is probably unreliable. They said Lady Gaga was a man (no that is not true) and has no siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.149 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rootsweb probably fails WP:V if the material is controversial or likely to be challenged. It should not be used as a source in a high profile article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be true that Gaga's mother has some English or French ancestry, however Lady Gaga has never mentioned that. In this video she states that both her parents are Italian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pMnnISo3ag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.149 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Despite the fact that Lady Gaga has said that over and OVER again, hopefully she was lying.

SHOWstudio interview

She talks at some length about her background in the 2 hour long SHOWstudio.com interview the day before yesterday. As far as I can tell from it, Convent of the Sacred Heart have declined to continue any association with her family once her sister has graduated, or allow them whatever status. Awful if true. Gaga is genuinely upset about it.

Not the brightest decision, for obvious reasons. And it's not like these American schools are filled with proper bluebloods. For the most part the families are not American noblesse d'épée (no such thing really), even if worth a few hundred million or a few billion. They're middle class and of no greater origins ultimately than Gaga's family.

Hopefully she'll continue to make good friends in Great Britain and Europe and elsewhere. I want to see a greater and greater artist. DinDraithou (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing interview

For some reason we don't have any facts or quotes in the article from this nasty Times Online (The Sunday Times) piece from early December last year. Here is Gaga on her parents (pg 2):

“ She says the habit of working hard comes from her parents. “They both came from lower-class families, so we’ve worked for everything — my mother worked eight to eight out of the house, in telecommunications, and so did my father. I had jobs when I was 16, I had tons of jobs when I dropped out of school, I come from this hustling background so for me it was just normal to do it this way.” Did they talk about money much at home? “No. The one time we talk about money is when my dad’s screaming at me on the phone to save, whereas I want to spend everything on my show. Because I don’t really care about money. I don’t care about having a big fancy car, or going to fancy parties. But this album is about being in the midst of the hustle, grinding for the dreams, and now that the dream is on my finger, I’m a bit more relaxed.” ”

What the hell? The interview was widely read because there are many comments. I have only known a few things about Gaga since March, so perhaps it once appeared here.

The interviewer Lynn Barber may be unpleasant to read, but it is full of fun Gaga things, like her work with Nick Knight (photographer), whom it just so happens is the founder and director of SHOWstudio.com, which interviewed Gaga three days ago, as I posted above.

So what do we add from it? DinDraithou (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to rewrite/expand Gaga's Early life section a little, using this material. After rereading the Barber piece I'll review several more, then start sometime later today or maybe tomorrow. Just letting everyone know ahead of time. DinDraithou (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bump. I suppose I'm still trying to figure out how to work in Barber's churlish "load of impenetrable art bollocks", preceding her quoting Gaga on Nick Knight, and having nothing clever to say about it. But I am proud that my contribution on Gaga's "lower-class" background, which was the easy part, remains. DinDraithou (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Picture

Can someone please change the first picture on the article. I'm sure there are plenty of other pictures that portray her in a more proper and dignified essence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.33.191 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say it's hard to have a dignified essence when you spend your entire public life either hiding behind stupid hats or dancing in your underwear. But I grant you the image we currently have is not great, but it is one of the few to show her face. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on the matter, but there's File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless.jpg (which I believe was previously used as the lead image) or File:Gaga on Fame Ball1-edit.jpg, both of which show here face but the rest aren't really of usable quality and certainly not for a lead image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way wikipedia, the photo depicting Lady Gaga reminds me of a vampire/prostitute there are plenty more pictures of Lady Gaga, I would love to see a picture of her with brown hair but whatever fits. Find a picture with her skin covered because alot of people especially kids follow Gaga and a better influence (positive excuse me sorry) from wikipedia could help. So do so please, 1. Change Picture 2. Find One With Her Skin Covered 3. Non-Protitute would be nice 4. How about her brown natural hair?? Just saying Thanks Global.Geo.Historic.Data--Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that GaGa is actually very well represented by the picture used here. the aim of this article is surely to create an accurate picture of GaGa and her life. this picture represents the image that gaga constantly gives out. and is therefore extremely relevant. I would vote against changing it. because gaga has a specific image and that picture represents it. Ksood91 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we make this one her article picture, it represents her a lot better File:Gaga-monster-ball.jpg--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That picture is quite blurred - maybe look for one of higher quality Ksood91 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's blurred because it's enlarged, once you fit it in the info box it becomes high quality.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

New pictures uploaded

I am not allowed to add pictures. I am not very interested in uploading pictures that can not be added, or will not be used. Please add pic as soon as possible. See sweish page for new gallery, as I was allowed to edit swedish page

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1209.jpg

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1251.jpg

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1207.jpg

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1278.jpg

From stage show at Gröna Lund, Stockholm, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwikitext2 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why do you want to add some old pictures of her? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why say "sorry"? Anyway, current pic are low-res, readers might want more pictures, it will be difficult to get fresh good qual pic, and basic users will not find the uploaded pictures unless they take a university course in wikimedia searches. These pic are good quality, probably still interesting to people. This is not Wikinews. Sorry I dont understand well how to 'talk' like this. Best Regards Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwikitext2 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I was not able to understand why you wanted to use these images as the main pic. Thing is, we can't use them as they are from 2008, while we already have high-resolution images from 2010. Also, the pictures you uploaded has the subject's face obscured by a sunglass, whereas the 2010 images aren't, and show the full face. I think you can understand why priority will be given to the 2010 pics. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then create 'gallery' for other pictures! People will not find the pictures if pic are not on the main page. Google image search for Lady Gaga wikipedia and nothing comes up as top results. /Janwikitext —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwikitext (talk • contribs) 09:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for that. There is a link to Wikimedia commons at the bottom of the page, from where people can link to other free images of Gaga. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That link is not well visible to my eyes. Commons pictures do not appear high on google. Will test with some guinea pigs if people find the link. And I have learned that I will check if a page is locked before uploading any pictures that will only be buried and not visible! End of talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janwikitext (talk • contribs) 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree these pictures of Lady Gaga literally suck alright? I mean if this were me I would be angry for these pictures shown on the well visited site of wikipedia. Add more theres like 4 and I hate them all. And these pictures would never be featured in a real encyclopedia, I mean if WORLDBOOK had an article on Lady Gaga imagine the picture at the top of the article....... THERE YOU GO!--Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Second female to have her first seven singles to reach the top ten since Monica

With the release of her most recent single, "Alejandro," reaching the top-ten of Billboard's Hot 100, it was noted that she became only the second female artist to have her first seven singles consecutively reach the top ten of the chart since Monica's streak in 1995-1999. Shouldn't this be mentioned as a feat achieved by Gaga? Drakehottie 19:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Source: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3id31d4e02483751f27cac10172a913f95

She has many such records on Billboard. These are quite trivial and broken like "this" nowadays with the advent of the digital downloading. This information is releveant in the artist's song page, but in a biography page, it becomes trivial. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

I Noticed The Article is missing a personal life section. The Lopus Thing , Her Dad Condition , her Love Life And Sexuality. Why is this missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.22.186 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's intertwined in a life and career section. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh no one reads that part. Btw this article should focus more on her musical success! I mean its Lady Gaga and this article makes her seam like shes unheard of, never had a hit no fans, no personal life, its like shes a doll... Thats my opinion and the article is locked so I hope someone changes this crap soon. Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Her profile picture... and shark-jumping

I'm actually fond of it, but have seen it where it is for long enough. What I suggest is that we replace it with a classic shot from 2008 or early 2009, for a change. DinDraithou (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And it might be appropriate now that Gaga has jumped the shark with Alejandro. See this and this. DinDraithou (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And wow!, I have spent enough time on this talk page, but managed to ignore the picture-related discussions right above. (Looking stupid.) Maybe I read them, but was trying to look cool and then forgot. DinDraithou (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"...an international icon, the first truly massive star of the 21st century"?

Since artists such as Britney Spears and Madonna have had such quotes, or those of a similiar kind, in their biographies and/or introductions, since Lady Gaga has become such a massive force in the music industry and pop culture, shouldn't there be mention of such credibility to her name in this article? Drakehottie 19:02, 09 June 2010

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1641109/20100608/lady_gaga.jhtml

Madonna's career span = 26 years

Britney's career span = 12 years

Gaga's career span = 2 years

Too warly to make such a statement, albeit MTV reporting it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change " Associated acts = Lady Starlight, Space Cowboy" to "Associated acts = Lady Starlight, Space Cowboy, Beyoncé Knowles" because They have written and performed two songs ("Video Phone" and "Telephone") together

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 02:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Heart Beats

File:Heartbeats by Lady Gaga @ NAMM 2010.jpg Ok, Lady Gaga is also an inventor as proof here this article should feature a section on this creation. Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Are you implying that Gaga invented headphones? Quite the crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wtf is your problem? I never said that its a type of headphones sold at best-buy created by lady gaga. Do I have to explain this into more detail?Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

I agree -GaGa was the creative force behind heartbeats and is now also the creative force behind polaroid. her work outside music should also be mentioned. and there really is no need to be so rude Legolas Ksood91 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception

What is this? Can someone explain the critical reception of her life? it seems that GaGa has been copying all time and the critica have not gave her positive reviews! AriandaGAGA (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Agree, every time I delete it or something they say I have to provide a reason, I think the section is totally pointless as it is based on opinions not facts, and it seems like it was added by a hater not from a neutral point of view. I just edited it to make it shorter and correct the spelling mistakes.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is no point to that section. Everyone has an opinion these days. An Encyclopedia does not need to two cents of random nobodies who claim to have expertise in a field. Wikipedia is getting worse and worse on this issue and frankly Its going to get to a point where the world as a whole will not take wikipedia seriously. Frankly I'm at a point where I am going to just stop editing on wikipedia because of these types of issues. Back in the day when you opened an encyclopedia you did not get all the opinions of random people. It was to the point. This section is not to the point because it has nothing to do with the point. It should go. --Alextwa (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this section is indeed needed, but it needs to be more balanced. I'm glad the article points out how unoriginal and fake she is though. --FnH (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, see? you think it is needed because you dislike her, it's not about what you think, this is an encyclopedia, it has no business pointing out her flaws, besides, if you think she is fake, other people think she is truly talented, such as her fans. I dislike Twilight, but do I go writing "TWILIGHT SUCKSSSSSSSSSSSS" on the article???--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I was adding contrast to your motives. I felt like you don't want this section to be in the article, because not all of it is positive. I think the section is indeed important, whether all of it is good or bad. Plus, I did say "it needs to be balanced"... --FnH (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, you don't. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the question of how to best sum up the critical reception of Lady Gaga's work, though. How do you think we could best choose which music critics are significant enough to be quoted here? How about, only people who write for notable music publications, and then try to sum up the consensus that comes from what they've written about her, both positive and negative? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The reviews written will be concerning the albums or singles, which have to be put on other articles not on her main page... otherwise, we can put all the reviews on an artist's main page. What I'm saying is that this section does not belong on this article nor is any portion of it. We can delete it then separate its many parts and put it in different articles where it belongs.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is a phenomenon, almost like a trend of sorts. This is why it's important to have a section for public response. --FnH (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article about Lady Gaga should not include any information about how her music has been received critically. In fact, I think that a section on that subject is important. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if anything it should be expanded. What is here "treatment of her little monsters"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The section should be merged to the musical style, as the critical commentary is appropriate there, like other music related bio articles. I have removed the peer reception of her work, since Grace Jones and MIA receptions are hardly notable and are biased. I have kept the critical commentary of her music, how scholars and critics receive it and how her work is creating influence. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with your deletion. As I stated before, Lady GaGa is a phenomenon from image to music and for this reason the main article itself should have a response-section. And in any case, you shouldn't remove a part of the article before reaching consensus. --FnH (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Using words such as "phenomenon" just gives a hint of the fancrufty addition that you endorse. Also, please look through the article. I haven't deleted anything significant, just merged it with the musical style section. No bio article should have a specific critical commentary section, except songs, albums, books and media articles. A specific music related article should have the critical commentary based on the music, not on whether she has a "hermy dick" and calls her fans "monster" because she is a "phenomenon". Such tabloidy additions are not welcome. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This, I agree with. But, again, the reception is not based on someone's life, it's the image that she is selling. Hermy dick, monsters etc is irrelevant to the article. But the reception should not only include musical reception. --FnH (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Her image comes from her music, not the other way round. She is primarily a musical artist. The wacky images and the shock tactics are all promotional devices, however contrary she might say and has been reported in media as such. We already have a separeate Public Image section, where the aspects of her image is discussed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the merging thing. And this is called neutralizing, not the ones before, and it explains the critical reception of her whole image, not a specific album.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Gaga's song

we have to fix it! it's red! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You can fix it by linking the song titles to the album that they come from- I assume that all of Lady Gaga's albums are the subjects of articles? Those songs that are well-known separately from their albums may have enough information available to write an individual article about the song. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy

"After a dispute with her label, "Alejandro" was chosen as the album's third single and it became her seventh consecutive single to reach the top ten on the Billboard Hot 100, the accompanied music video generated some controversy for Gaga's use of blasphemy."

I've watched the video many times and I saw no blasphemy. Is the above comment the opinion of an editor, or is it quoted from somewhere? I see not reference or citation.

The video does have a few shots of Catholic imagery, such as Gaga in a Nun's habit, another with her and rosary beads. I know some people would consider any Catholic images as inherently blasphemous. However, I think for the above quote to be accurate, she would need to actually show "irreverance" to artifacts or using words -- Not merely having Catholic imagery in a secular video.

Perhaps the above quote would read better if it said something like "...the accompanied music video generated some controversy for Gaga's use of Catholic imagery.

75.72.39.145 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence may just need to come out, since there aren't sources to back up either the outcry over "blasphemy" or the dispute with the label. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

third studio album

Lady Gaga stated on Larry King Live that her third studio album is complete, but will not be released in 2010. Rather being released in 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.12.78 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's new album is called The Love Beast and is said to be released around February 2011. The name of her first two singles from The Love Beast are called The Beast Inside and My Heart is Frozen and she plans on shooting the music video for The Beast Inside sometime in the Spring next year. This is according to Lady Gaga's Official Website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.57.49 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"She had a core group of friends; she was a good student

The girl named "Hollie" that claims to have went to high school with Lady Gaga actually lives in England and is only 17 years old. There is no way she knew Lady Gaga. It's a third party source anyway and is not a reliable source. She is a girl sending emails to newspapers for 15 minutes of fame and has told a number of lies to other papers. This line should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Next time, please don;t create such a big header, and state your reasons and references here. Wikipedia doesnot accept any original research. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning data exfiltration mention

Army Intel specialist Manning claimed to have exfiltrated data using a CDRW labelled Lada Gaga, and he mentioned "Telephone" in conversations with Adrian Lamo.

---

I don't know squat about LGG but I think this is an interesting sidenote.

YMMV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.186.77 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Again. What? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it involves the Illuminati and the CIA. Total wtf. DinDraithou (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro

Hello all. I was wondering why there is no remark about "Alejandro", Gaga's third single in the article. Thanks. — MyDecember ^(talk) 14:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

albums sales =

i think you have a mistake with the albums sales "the fame" sold 10 million "the fame monster" sold 2 million how you get to 15 millions ??????