Talk:Lady 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.

---

How to Display GaGa?

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.

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)

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)

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)