Talk:Lady Gaga

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)

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)

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)

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"[1] (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)

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."[2] 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)

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 a 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

== Lady Gaga as a Christian == I am little bit offended and just ask for source to prove this claim. Because right now all she is in the category.

Lady Gaga: Species Information

Do you think we should add a section about the species of Lady Gaga? After all, she is not homo sapien. Her name is actually part of "her" classification. (I say "her" in quotations, since I believe her race does not have male/female gender distinctions, you'd have to check this though).
I believe it goes like this:

Kingdom: Alienia
Phylum: Nonearthus
Class: Marsus
Family: lookusHominidae
Genus: Ladius
Species: Gaggas

If you don't believe me, a simple Google Images search of "Lady Gaga" will begin to reveal her surprisingly alien-likeness.
Input? 66.172.101.250 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)