Talk:Lady Gaga

Copying

PLEASE READ MY ARTICLE: FRENCH HOMEWORK HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FINNY KUN think the debate on her never referencing her sources should be adressed. Other celebrities don't get away with it, and at least two others celebrities have called her out on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefamelove (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Illness

Whoever wrote about her being on oprah showing no signs of illness should take that out...the oprah show was filmed a week before she was sick when she was in chicago for her monster ball tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.247.27 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Source? Sparks Fly 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed that up a little bit. It seemed a bit bias in just replicating bias information in the source. the source did mention she was given the all clear to go on the show and perform. That statement however does not show any bias so I noted that in my edit. I however do not know if it was pre taped. No information is provided stating that so it looks like it was live. If it was not then please give a source. She was in Chicago the previous week. --Alextwa (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of bias are you talking about? Sparks Fly 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that it would be notable to state that in the following day she performed on Oprah with no signs of illness. The biographical part of the article current ends with a "and what happened then?" feeling so it would, in my opinion, be necessary to put on. Sparks Fly 22:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling her "Gaga" = against WP:MOS?

Surely dubbing her Gaga throughout the article, and other Wiki pages, is a WP:MOS violation as it is not her surname but rather a shortened down version of her nickname? It's the same as calling Lady Sovereign "Sovereign", Dizzee Rascal "Dizzee" etc. I believe that it should be changed to "Lady Gaga" instead of the "Gaga" colloquialism. WossOccurring (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In the lyrics to many of her songs (Monster, Bad Romance, Lovegame) she refers to herself as Gaga, so I don't regard it as a colloquialism. --uKER (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

50 Cent refers to himself as "Fiddy" in his songs. However, we aren't writing a lyrics archive, we are writing an encyclopedia. WossOccurring (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit to finding this a weird and interesting conversation. My own preference, as a reader with "little or no knowledge of the subject" (ahem), is that the editors please keep that person in mind (the reader with little or no knowledge of the subject) when editing the article. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's where my concerns were first aroused; it smells of WP:NOT#FANSITE to me. WossOccurring (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Gaga" is too informal. It's like referring to the Big Bopper as simply "Bopper". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaga is used in the papers. [1] [2] SunCreator (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So is SuBo, Macca, Chezza, LiLo and so on. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. WossOccurring (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What you cited are nicknames, and not surnames adoted by the media. Sparks Fly 22:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The media may be reliable sources for the fact that she's informally called simply "GaGa" sometimes (or however it's spelled this week), but WP doesn't call anyone informally. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still can't see any problem referring her only as "Gaga", and I think that this topic is a bit trivial, similar to the Gaga/GaGa discussion we had some months ago. However, the consensus here is clearly already done. In my opinion, calling her "Lady Gaga" throughout the article will make the lecture too repetitive and tiring, but I won't even discuss because I know that it's not a worth-point because people will obviously argue that "Gaga" also makes so, which, by the way, I don't agree. So, just do it. Sparks Fly 00:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, guys. Since you all are jumping into the WP:OSE, I'm going to take this boat too. Alicia Keys, a clearly better article to take as example compared to those of you, reads "Keys" all over the article. It is a GA, which means that there wasn't a problem with this topic on its nomination process, which would be the same here. I might call User:Explicit and/or User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who are experienced users, to give a hand on this subject. Sparks Fly 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alicia Augello Cook takes the stage name Alicia Keys, and we explain this to the reader early on, and use the formal "Keys" in the rest of the article. Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez takes the stage name Martin Sheen, and we explain this to the reader early on, and use the formal "Sheen" in the rest of the article (except in the early life section, where he is Estévez). Informally they may be called Alicia and Martin (we won't be doing this in articles if I can help it, but I have caught editors doing just that in the case of some more obscure actors). Hmm, weird (does his mom call Sheen "Ramón"? I haven't a clue).

Does the informal Lady make sense in this context? Doesn't seem like it. My conclusion is that "Lady Gaga" must be something other than a stage name. A nickname maybe? It seems to me what type of name it is must be established before figuring out what to do about it. One article that comes to mind, though I'm not sure it applies in the case is Honorific nicknames in popular music. However, it leads me to Sobriquet which may be closer to the mark. The See also sections of those articles provide plenty of info to understand the subject better. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because Alicia Keys is a name, where as Lady Gaga is more like a title. I can name 1000 people with the first name Alicia, and 1000 with the last name Keys, but I would not be able to find anyone with the first name Lady and/or the last name Gaga. WossOccurring (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The same that Alicia did by adopting her "Alicia Keys" as her name, Gaga did the same with "Lady Gaga". I know that it's a uncommon name, and funny at the same time but it's true. This topic has a similar issue, she adopted "Lady Gaga" as her name and now uses it both in her professional and personal life. As an user pointed: they go by those names exclusively - and that is something that is well documented. Sparks Fly 17:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I cna't believe you people are arguing about this. She is very commonly called "Gaga". Why shoudn't we use it in the article? As long as it's clear who we're talking about, why does it matter? It's not quite the same as calling her by her last name (or adopted last name) only. But close. Why did the OP link the MOS? I can't find anything there that applies. -Freekee (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. She is referred to as "Gaga" quite often, so I don't see what the issue is. John9988 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I share WossOccurring concerns and fully understand the counterargument as well. My first instinct would have been to use Germanotta but that too would be incorrect.

WP:LASTNAME: People who are best known by a pseudonym shall be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is to be used. For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally (i.e. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; doctor/broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky), use the legal surname.

Based on the above, would say Lady Gaga closely resembles Snoop Dogg rather than a recognizable surname such as Tina Turner. Therefore I recommend using Lady Gaga as opposed to Gaga. Also, in terms of Manuel of Style, I would also suggest using pronouns whenever possible to cut down on the use of her name. The reader (whether an obessive fan or some who knows absolutely nothing about her) should realize the article is about Lady Gaga - we don't have to use her name in every sentence.

The Lead section as of now:

Lady Gaga (born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta; March 28, 1986) is an American singer, songwriter and performance artist. She began performing in the rock music scene of New York City's Lower East Side. Lady Gaga soon signed with Streamline Records, an imprint of Interscope Records, upon its establishment in 2007. During her early time at Interscope, Gaga worked as a songwriter for fellow label artists and captured the attention of Akon, who recognized her vocal talent, and had her signed to his own label, Kon Live Distribution.

Her debut album The Fame was released in August 2008 and was a critical and commercial success. In addition to receiving generally positive reviews, it went number-one in four countries, also topping the Billboard Top Electronic Albums chart in the United States. The album's first two singles, "Just Dance" and "Poker Face", co-written and co-produced with RedOne, have become international number-one hits, and the former was nominated for Best Dance Recording at the 51st Grammy Awards. In early 2009, after having opened for New Kids on the Block and the Pussycat Dolls, Gaga embarked on her first headlining tour, The Fame Ball Tour. By the end of 2009, Gaga released The Fame Monster, an extension of The Fame, containing eight new songs with the global chart-topping lead single "Bad Romance", as well as having embarked on her second headlining tour of the year, The Monster Ball Tour.

Gaga is inspired by glam rockers such as David Bowie and Queen, as well as pop singers like Madonna. She is also inspired by fashion, which she has said is an essential component to her songwriting and performances. To date she has sold over 20 million digital singles and more than four million albums worldwide.

Recommendation:

Lady Gaga (born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta; March 28, 1986) is an American singer, songwriter and performance artist. She began performing in the rock music scene of New York City's Lower East Side. She soon signed with Streamline Records, an imprint of Interscope Records, upon its establishment in 2007. During her early time at Interscope, she worked as a songwriter for fellow label artists and captured the attention of Akon, who recognized her vocal talent, and had her signed to his own label, Kon Live Distribution. ::*After New Heights Entertainment signed Lady Gaga to Def Jam and then they subsequently dropped the contract, New Heights Entertainment principal recognized the unique talent in the then unknown artist in NYC in 2007 and introduced her to their long time client RedOne in order to produce a new sound they believed was needed. This was a turning point.

Her debut album The Fame was released in August 2008 and was a critical and commercial success. In addition to receiving generally positive reviews, it went number-one in four countries, also topping the Billboard Top Electronic Albums chart in the United States. The album's first two singles, "Just Dance" and "Poker Face", co-written and produced with RedOne, have become international number-one hits, and the former was nominated for Best Dance Recording at the 51st Grammy Awards. In early 2009, after having opened for New Kids on the Block and the Pussycat Dolls, she embarked on her first headlining tour, The Fame Ball Tour. By the end of 2009, she released The Fame Monster, an extension of The Fame, containing eight new songs with the global chart-topping lead single "Bad Romance", as well as having embarked on her second headlining tour of the year, The Monster Ball Tour.

She is inspired by glam rockers such as David Bowie and Queen, as well as pop singers like Madonna. She is also inspired by fashion, which she has said is an essential component to her songwriting and performances. To date she has sold over 20 million digital singles and more than four million albums worldwide.

This should be adopted throughout the article, the only time you would need to mention her name again is at the beginning of a new subsection, or following a direct quote from someone other than herself to be clear on who is saying what. Other than that, when we say "she" or "her" the reader should already understand we are talking about Lady Gaga. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't referred to as Germanotta? It's formal and explained earlier in the article.

I agree with The Bookkeeper (of the Occult). Whatever is finalized here should also be applied to other artists with pseudonyms. Currently, Lady Sovereign's write-up shifts back and forth between "Lady Sovereign" and "Sovereign." Doc2234 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Sovereign is an interesting case because she refers to herself, at times, as "Miss Sovereign." So, she seems to use her pseudonym as a surname. Does Lady Gaga do similarly? —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting since in the edit summary of an edit two weeks ago I thought "Gaga" to be a recognizable surname per WP:LASTNAME; the "Lady" title suggested that for me, similar to Lady Addle or many others. Of course now that I think of it, there are countless counterexamples as well, e.g. Lady Ada or Lady Di. Consequently I don't have a strong opinion about using either "Gaga" or "Lady Gaga", they both seem appropriate to me as long as we're consistent. Hmm, although, now that I've checked newspaper articles mentioning her, the NY Times for example never shortens the name to just "Gaga", so I'm favoring the Bookkeeper's change now.
I very much agree with the MOS that "Germanotta" shouldn't be used. I personally wasn't familiar with her birth name, and tend to skip around articles when I read them - referring to the topic by that name would confuse me and, I believe, other readers as well.
Amalthea 15:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I approve Bookkeeper's recommendation as well. John9988 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to refer back to the Queen Latifa page which I think most closely relates to this Gaga discussion. Queen Latifa's entry refers to her has Latifa following initial introduction. The "Queen" in her stage name, as with the "Lady" in Gaga's, can be seen as a self-applied honorific; in which case, gramatically, it may be removed after initial introduction. -CM, 67.180.210.94 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oprah: "So, what do you like to be called?"

Gaga: "Gaga."

Oprah: "Gaga…"

Gaga: "Ya."

Oprah: "So I don't have to say Lady Gaga…"

Gaga: "No, I don't like that actually. I don't know why but… it feels so weird when people call me Lady."

Oprah: "Lady… Lady…"

Gaga: "Ya… so formal."

Oprah: "So Gaga."

Gaga: "Ya."

FYI—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with The BookKeeper. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Machine Elf 1735 is right, she calls herself Gaga so we should too.--Diforeverf (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think the The BookKeeper's approach, as well as what was done for Queen Latifa, are both good solutions.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of she throughout the article would be unencyclopedic and unnatural both for readers and ediors. The use of Gaga or Lady Gaga as used currently in the article is fine. SunCreator (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Bookkeeper quoted applicable policy and then took a U-turn from it in his recommendation.
I'll clarify:
People who are best known by a pseudonym shall be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge),
As has been established, Lady Gaga is frequently referred to in press releases and media articles as Gaga - the pseudonymous surname. Referring to her as 'Lady' simply doesn't work. The situation isn't analogous to Snoop Dogg as he is regularly referred to and recognized as Snoop (a fine example of how the WP:LASTNAME policy hasn't been very well thought out, as its application is not universally justifiable).
All that being said, I actually agree with Bookkeeper's recommendation. Not because of WP:LASTNAME policy, however - going by that, Gaga would be acceptable. She should be referred to as either Lady Gaga or Germanotti (depending on the circumstances) throughout the article because that is encyclopedic...the policy is not.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gaga" is no more a pseudonymous surname than "Dogg", "Edge", or "Loaf". The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The hermaphrodite thing needs to be addressed

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)

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))

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)

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)

MTV's 2009 WOMAN OF THE YEAR

Lady GaGa was MTV's Woman of the Year for 2009. It is very significant as MTV is a leading broadcaster and producer of music and she also beat the likes of many other popular female artists.

"No one challenged, provoked, entertained and, well, titillated us over the past 12 months quite like Gaga." -Jem Aswad

All the descriptions and link is here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1628490/20091217/lady_gaga.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.217.37 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC) As Well as a Singer GaGa is a Fashion Icon, She's a Very Beautiful Women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.115.93 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So yeah someoneeee put in her discription!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.217.249 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

simple error

it says no1 one inspiration. i can't edit it because its locked. 152.3.249.18 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! Tabercil (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

other influences

In her interview on the Jay Leno Show (late November 2009), she mentioned being influenced by Judy Garland and Led Zeppelin. (She also mentioned that this article says that she is from Yonkers, but it doesn't seem to currently be the case. --Walter.bender (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's very weird: I'm not a Lady Gaga fan (no clue who she is, really); I'm just watching this page because of an interesting word usage oddity in the encyclopedia, a page lots of Lady Gaga fans inevitably watch I'm sure, yet here I am, an actual Walter Bender fan. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact time and date of the interview with Jay Leno , but she mentioned that she is not from Yonkers and that she couldn't correct wikipedia, which prompted me to try and help her in this regard. by jbmmasters, creative title Juan Magas, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmmasters (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 January 2010

Actually, after that interview, Yonkers was removed. Check what's currently the #5 reference in the article, "The Jay Leno Show - What's the rumor that bugs her the most? - Video." —C.Fred (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Anyone Think Heartbeats Should Be Included Somewhere?

Lady Gaga designed in-ear headphones called Heartbeats. They're Beats By Dr. Dre featuring Monster Tangle-Free Cables. Does anyone else think this should be included somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a source that says she designed them? —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a whole article... http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/Reviews/Story/A1Story20091230-188834.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So should we add it or not?--Diforeverf (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

YES!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.217.249 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace, Gaga claims to be Mnahattan born

But a celebrity may wish to have otters believe that they be born somethplace else than where she is born. Will not trust her as a source because of this self-serving nature. Lingust (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Anyone have an impartial source?

New CD, X-posed

I know it exists, they sell it at Walmart where you can pre-order it. It comes out on 02/16/2010, does anyone else think this should be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, I can buy it at lots of retailers (with varying claimed release dates), but I don't find news about it, and I don't trust the alleged cover image which is just a montage of an existing image, http://cassettecouture.com/wp-content/uploads/lady_gaga.jpg.
Anyhow, as long as there's noting in reliable sources out there, we can't add it to the articles, even if several retailers agree on existence and name. They just aren't reliable enough with that kind of information (never mind the release dates, that's often just guesswork). Amalthea 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess we'll see whenever it's released, if it's released. I'll Keep Looking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This CD was already brought up- see Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_5#Third_Album_X-Posed.

It's interviews, maybe it's not that relevant.--Diforeverf (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the allmusic source, they state it is a spoken word album. On the Wallmart site, enlarge the cover and it says "Over an hour of interviews with the girl herself.. Includes colour booklet and poster." This is not a new studio album, it just consists of interviews. That is why this CD is titled "X-Posed" because the artist is exposed in these interviews. • вяαdcяochat 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K., so case closed? Or maybe it is important? Guess we'll find out when it comes out! :)--Diforeverf (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{(Resolved)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.120.205 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Diforeverf (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Resolved

Resolved

 – Diforeverf (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rilke???

Hahahaha. I do not believe that Rilke is quoted in an article about this Lady Gaga ... And though the information has references and is serious, well, I just had to laugh... Now mediocre people decided idolaters men of genius? Auréola (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even on the talk page?--76.100.120.205 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's your opinion, but others don't think of her as a mediocre person.--Diforeverf (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Okay first I have a few questions i would like to ask. Was Lady Gaga a brunette? Where was she born? Was she born in a small town? When is she going to come to Jackson, TN.? I mean if you think about it everybody would show up, I mean who doesn't like Lady Gaga? But yea i want Lady Gaga to come here to Jackson,Tn. But I do hear Gwen Stefani wries alot of her music. But she does remind me alot of her and Nodoubt. When i was little i use to listen to them all day, everyday and i just loved them. But I love Lady Gaga and her style its just so crazy i mena she has so many fans i wish i could be like that sometimes! But I love her and I would LOVEEEE for her to come to Jackson, TN.

--24.176.113.251 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Chloe Bradley

CHART RECORDS

Lady GaGa is the first artists to have 4 #1's from a debut album (The Fame)! That should be input somewhere in her description!!! sources: http://www.billboard.com/artist/lady-gaga/1003999#/news/lady-gaga-sets-latest-billboard-chart-record-1004032526.story

She is also the first artist in ten years to have 2 #1's consecutively.

sources: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lady-GaGa-Breaks-Chart-Records-with-Poker-Face-108467.shtml or http://www.billboard.com/artist/lady-gaga/1003999#/news/lady-gaga-draws-a-pair-of-no-1s-1003957967.story

Oh and now she has 5 consecutive #1's with Bad Romance!!! sources: http://www.billboard.com/artist/lady-gaga/1003999#/news/chart-beat-wednesday-lady-gaga-reba-muse-1004056847.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.217.249 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts && Occupations.

She was also a featured artists on Wales track "Chillin" that should be added.

And she recently signed a deal with Polaroid as an "inventor" or creative director that should be added as well.

Sources:

• http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20100107polaroid_snaps_up_lady_gaga/srvc=home&position=also

• http://www.chipchick.com/2010/01/lady-gaga-polaroid.html

• http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2010/01/06/polaroid-enlists-a-pop-star/

• http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/lady-gaga-directing-the-instant-shots-at-ces-1859688.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.139.26 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Heartbeats fits in here too.--76.100.120.205 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Total digital singles sold?

I am very curious about her selling 35 million digital singles WW. There is an article from november 2009 and they said that she sold 20 million digital singles. It is impossible to sell 15 million more in only 2 month and with only one new single. We all know that Artists webs normally inflate their sales. We should try to find another source for this. http://ema.mtv.co.uk/artists/lady_gaga There is a report saying that her digital sales in Us are around 18 millon. I think 17 million more around the world seems to much. Sorry for my english.--Albes29 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

-If you read that article its says "to date" as in, thats how many she sold during that time. Yes it is possible to do so, and she has done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.139.26 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

X-Factor on UK television in December 2009 it was said to be over 30 million. They didn't say just digital, so could include album sales also. By the way, I have also read that in the UK when Bad Romance was #1 with weekly sales of 75000+ that the other singles sold more in the same period. So maybe don't dismiss sales of old and uncoming songs. SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way. You "think 17 million more around the world seems to much". US doesn't sell as much music per person as elsewhere, like the UK or Japan and also the population of the US is less then half of Europe alone. So really would expect none US sales to larger then US sales. SunCreator (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if someone noted, but the current source, besides being unreliable, presents a completely different information which she back up. The most reliable and accuracy thing that I ever seen is this (more than 21.5 million units sold just in the U.S.), however, he just present the figures in the United States, but as for now, while there's no reliability to the Worldwide situtation I would vote to keep the statement with the source and the figure that I brought even if it only presents the American one. Sparks Fly 14:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on total sales claims at a number of Wikipedia articles. First let me say Paul Grein (author of the link posted by Sparks Fly immediately above) knows whereof he speaks, as he wrote a column about the same sort of thing for Billboard magazine for many years. However, there are two major problems with what may be construed from that. Firstly, he apparently did not write the title for the column being referenced (21 Million Lady Gaga Fans Can't Be Wrong) because that would suggest that each person who bought an individual, well, unit (I'll get to that next), never bought another thing from this artist. Hardly sounds like a fan. Obviously many of those sales go to the same people. (There may be millions of fans who don't purchase the music, but that's another story.)

But those are side issues to the main point: editors need to read very closely what is actually being stated by a source who would know. (When it's reprinted in a tertiary source, they've likely made the same mistake people are making here.) The Grein article states that Gaga sold over 18 million individual digital tracks, not 18 million singles or 18 million albums. All of the successive data about which single sold how much is not additional, it's splitting those 16 million digital tracks to their respective songs. The next additional data point he gives is how many actual physical album and EP sales she has had, which is 2,517,000 copies of The Fame (or Double Platinum) and 637,000 copies of The Fame Monster (or Gold). Then he adds these two groups. That's the dodgy part. Were the "individual digital tracks" all purchased individually? In other words, people often select a few cuts from the album, or a few mixes of a song. That used to be called one sale, and they may have gotten more than they actually wanted. Now they're paying less, to get only what they want, yet it's counting as more "units". So that if I pay to download three songs from a twelve-track album, I have only bought 25% of the album yet it counts as 300% of the album!

This is where I'd like to point out that Billboard exists for people who are interested in which artists are charting. Most charting artists are relatively new artists (when Michael Jackson or the Beatles have a resurgence of interest in their older material, they're not eligible for the main, featured, Hot 100 or Top Albums charts). Billboard isn't interesting or successful or impressive if new music artists aren't made to seem interesting, successful and impressive. So Billboard is, in effect, anything but a dispassionate bystander, and they are promoting the new artists nearly as much as their record labels and publishers. (They have acknowledged this in print; it is one of the reasons cited for why an older title is ineligible to re-chart on the primary charts.)

Paul Grein, then — while an expert in these matters and keyed in to all the latest developments and where to get the raw data — is helping to spin the information to seem as impressive as possible. If 25 years ago someone bought a 12" single with four remixes, it wasn't even counted as a sale of the single, it was counted as a different sort of unit. If ten years ago people bought a CD maxi single with four or five or even ten remixes, it was counted as one unit. Now if someone legally downloads five or ten remixes, they're counted as five or ten times as many "units" sold. If I download the four remixes on what is billed online as Lady Gaga's "Just Dance" Remixes EP Part 1, and then the four remixes on "Just Dance" Remixes EP Part 2, this is counted as eight units, or eight single track downloads (which some erroneously call "digital singles"). If I had purchased the 1984 equivalent, on two separate 12" vinyl records, this would not have counted as even one U.S. single sale, it would have counted as two remixes, which were not combined or conflated with singles sales. If I had purchased the 1999 equivalent, on 2 separate CD maxi singles, this would have counted as two singles (unless it were an import, in which case I strongly suspect it would have already been registered as a single sale in the other country). But again, the 2010 equivalent, via digital download, counts as eight single track downloads, or eight units.

If not for this, sales would seem much less impressive. Double platinum is impressive indeed and most artists don't get a fraction of those sales in their entire careers much less in a year and a half and for their debut alubm. But many, many other artists do, and have, and to make it seem like she's sold 18 or 21.5 or however many more millions, when the moderately informed reader is comparing that to figures of actual physical sales of artists from eight or twelve or twenty or thirty years ago (when the population was half what it is now), is tantamount to lying. The only way it is fair to cite or compare figures such as these stated in the Grein article is if you are comparing them to other artists within the past four or five years.

Finally, sometimes people more interested in promoting an artist than the record business press — like their agents and managers — will add only tangentially related items to "units" sold. Units of what? If you download a digital ringtone or callback tone, it's counted as a full unit. If the artist had one song on a film soundtrack or a charity album or a hits compilation, some might be counting that as a "unit" they credit their artist with selling. (Why not, it's equal to one individual digital track download, right?) Sometimes they count music videos that are digitally downloaded or sold on DVD or VHS. I wouldn't put it past some promoters to add things like posters or concert tickets or, in the case of musicians who act, TV or movie DVD sales. All valid exchanges of money for product identified with and giving you some experience of their artist, and so on some level a reasonable measure of that artist's commercial draw. But not a standardized measure, and not single or album sales as they are being misconstrued by editors and readers alike. After all, Albes69 — who suspected this was an erroneous figure — himself uses the phrase "digital single" when what the figure is actually for is digital single tracks.

So consider the source, be careful not to add the wrong things or the same things twice, be wary of vague words like "units" — though be sure to use those vague words and not extrapolate that to anything more specific — and realize you are being spun even by the so-called "music bible" experts. Our editorial responsibility is to read carefully, represent the exact wording of the data point, and indicate the source. We're not comparing apples to apples, and we're not comparing apples to oranges, we're comparing apples to blueberries, but we're making those blueberries seem like cantaloupes.

My suggestion as an editor? Use the raw data points in the article, not a jingoistic catchall like "units", i.e., state "In the United States alone, he has sold over 2,517,000 albums, 637,000 EPs, and 18.3 million digital songs." Abrazame (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great summary. I really hadn't thought of billboard as promoting the new artists. Do you have reference for this being in print the Billboard article itelf could do will some menton of this. SunCreator (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay community

Wasn't there a tiny bit more about her relationship with the gay community before? Why was it removed?

Yeah, wasn't it something about it not for publicity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Monster Ball Tour

The Monster Ball was the second concert tour hosted and sanged by Lady Gaga. It started in late 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27thechris (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Indiana show was not the only show cancelled. An Atlantic City, NJ, and one CT date were cancelled, with another postponed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34882736/ns/local_news-hartford_ct/ and http://www.ladygaga.com/news/default.aspx?nid=24285. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.8.130 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is she even going to make up the shows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.228.135 (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Article in today's Star-Ledger

There's an article in today's Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ based newspaper) about Lady Gaga's early career development. I'm not sure when I may try to integrate the info from that newspaper article into this one, so I'm just giving folks a heads up in case they want to track down the article and add stuff from it themselves. I don't see the text of the article online yet, so there's just the hard copy right now. --JamesAM (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

On a Barbara Walters interview Lady Gaga said she got the name from her friends who started calling her Gaga because she was so theatrical. This story does not match the one on the Lady Gaga wikipedia page. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.120.205 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it not the same thing? In an interview(seen on youtube) with Jonathan Ross she(Gaga) said it was from the song Radio Gaga. Freddie Mercury was very theatrical so I find the two comments consistant. SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Red & Blue as Stefani Germanotta

I'm not sure at what point in her career she did this, but Lady Gaga recorded an EP titled Red & Blue under her real name. It's rather important that it be one here, as this was the first place I checked to try and confirm/lock down details. Oddly, it isn't on either iTunes or Lala. linkage: http://www.mediafire.com/?w4zkymnc3nm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.70.156 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See List_of_Lady_Gaga_songs SunCreator (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

gender.

I've heard rumors about her gender. Who can guarantee that she is woman? Thanks. 95.68.33.51 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably her doctor could. I've also done my own original research (by watching her videos), and based on that I can confirm that she is in fact a woman. In terms of the article though, it should only include information based on reliable sources. These days it seems like there are all sort of rumors and hoaxes involving celebrities, and it would be placing undue weight on what is a (presumably false) rumor to have it in the article. –Megaboz (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is 5 minutes of scouring the internet to pretty much confirm she is female. This is just a typical type of rumour people like to spread when they are jealous of someone. Look at the videos of her before "Lady Gaga". Either way, as far as the article is concerned she is a woman, no guarantee needed. Several "guaranteed" sources however would need to be included if anything about her gender came in to play. No such sources exist. SpigotMap 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. For the extraordinary claim that she is not female, several compelling sources with above-reproach reliability would be required. In the absence of such sources, it is fair to present her as female in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, although Snopes.com isn't necessarily a source in and of itself, they do include the sources they use, and cover the rumor (as in logically prove it's not true) here: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/ladygaga.asp Esprix (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also she confirmed it on a Barbara Walters interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 2010-01-27T15:53:37 (UTC)

In that interview with Barbara Walters she says she is bisexual. Nothing more. Maybe issue is people don't know that bisexual is not an issue of gender? SunCreator (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the interview, and this was a different question from the one you refer to. Walters asked Gaga about rumors that Gaga was not one gender. Gaga did not issue a categorical denial but indicated that the rumors did not offend her as she enjoys propagating a public image of androgyny. I note that some online versions of the interview omit this question and I cannot locate a transcript of the full interview to point to the exact language of the question. Robert K S (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search turned up this report which quoted the relevant portion of the interview. [3] Robert K S (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That links seems to be fiction, quoting the Daily Telegraph. Here is the Daily Telegraph article and a Google search shows only that Daily Telegraph article. Nothing about her gender. I question the reliability of linkive.com. SunCreator (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the exact time of the gender discussion in this youtube video? SunCreator (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "fiction", and that YouTube video represents an incomplete version of the interview, as I've already told you. Robert K S (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not fiction, where is this Daily Telegraph article? The Lady Gaga interview Barbara Walters on youtube says Full Interview. SunCreator (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to the Daily Telegraph article, but since it's not the source of the quotation, it's immaterial. Your "full version" may have been the "full version" of just one edit of the interview, but it assuredly is not the full interview. I watched the full interview and saw the excerpted portion which is quoted in the link I gave above. It's available on YouTube here (at 5:25) and also here (at 5:13). I trust this resolves the issue. Robert K S (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, your correct it seems the youtube I watch above was incomplete despite it saying otherwise. So thanks for this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_AQqiluNHY#t=5m23s link. It does clear things up. So Gaga was asked and said no. SunCreator (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Snopes has weighed in on The Rumour today, branding it false and citing the Barbara Walters interview mentioned above. [4] —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Esprix pointed that out above. Robert K S (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Early life

Have there been any articles about her life at NYU or before? Quotes from friends, classmates or teachers?--The lorax (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Her Dog

She has a dog called Gaga which she named after herself. It is a Springer Spaniel and will be 1 on the 15/02/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poperdom (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source? —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it in her autobiography and I thought more people would like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poperdom (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Snow? Wheee!

Lady Gaga → Lady GaGa — It is GaGa that she uses in her videos etc., therefore it makes sense to go with what she uses. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I agree with the proposed change of "Gaga" to "GaGa" on the grounds that it draws from the actual inspiration for her name from the Queen song "Radio Ga-Ga". Granted, we're still talking about the same woman. Nonetheless I believe that the change should happen. Drakehottie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose. Per WP:MOSCAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization, we are not obliged to use spellings that vary from standard capitalization; Lady Gaga is the preferred spelling according to the rules there. Additionally, when this was discussed before, it was noted that all official sources such as her label and her website used the Gaga spelling. Accordingly, how she styles her name in her videos is not a compelling reason to change the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Same argument as C.Fred. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per C.Fred. Also, it appears that the majority of sources use "Gaga" and not "GaGa" when referring to her. –Megaboz (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. I thought this discussion had been cleared up. Anyway Cdhaptomos, doesn't Lady Gaga use capitals most of the time? The only time I have seen 'GaGa' was in the "Poker Face" video when she is wearing her screen sunglasses, which seems to be more of a technical reason, rather than styling (everything is shown in both lenses). Adabow (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • She also uses it in "Bad Romance". Those are the only two to my knowledge. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per her websites Lady Gaga : Official Site, Lady Gaga (ladygaga) on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Interscope etc. When mixed case is used, it's 'Gaga'. —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the comments by C.Fred. Seth Whales (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per MOS:CAPS. John9988 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Death?

Where did this information come from?: "On January 29, 2010, Lady Gaga died in a tragic accident on a freeway outside of London after taping her "London LIVE" performance. Police are currently investigating." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keli88 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously not true --68.199.153.241 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It was just a vandal who placed in that fake information. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds legit to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.154.33 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been confirmed by many reliable news sources including CNN and BBC. This piece of information should be re-inserted into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babetted (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No she is really dead, limo was hit by a drunk driver, I just saw it on BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.250.225 (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that she had died on many relaible english news sources, I think that it is reasonable to include a death section at this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.216.75 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked CNN and BBC, and neither is reporting anything about her. For that matter, TMZ is quiet on the issue, and they'd be one of the first with a story like this. I'm going to call it a hoax at this point. If anybody wants to refute that, they'll need to provide the URL for the CNN or BBC story, not just "I saw it on BBC." —C.Fred (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Educational History - NYC

Can an established user please add to the page that she attended the "Convent of Sacred Heart" in Manhattan. She attended there for many years and most of her education (including high school?). This is a product of original research, since I knew of her growing up in Manhattan. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterD1361 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite Section Should be removed.

I agree in addressing the issue but you don't need to put it in a huge bolded section of its own. She's obviously not and the section doesn't even state she isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.139.26 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no "obviousness" about it. It is quite significant and notable, and we have no way of proving that she isn't. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Although this is very silly, it is considered to be notable enough to have its own Snopes article at [5]. Gaga was even asked about it in an interview with the venerable Barbara Walters. I vote to put in the article somewhere with reliable sourcing, if only to prevent silly additions and edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone who strongly objects to mentioning this? If Gaga and Barabara Walters are prepared to discuss it, why airbrush it out of Wikipedia?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

With the Snopes page and Walters interview, it probably deserves some mention. Maybe a sentence or two, but not a full section. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD was deliberately invited here. The article's regular editors have created a stalemate by parroting the same old arguments against inclusion. Time for some new thinking here. Look at the sourcing, folks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not normally support the inclusion of rumours, but this a notable one. There's plenty of sources and she's denied it herself. The fact that she denied it makes it notable enough for inclusion in to the article. I don't see how one sentence is putting undue weight on the subject. SpigotMap 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BRD does not mean you revert the same problematic material back into the article again and again. If we err on inclusion of a data point during a discussion, we need to err on the side of responsibility to the article subject. You have added it three times in the same day despite being aware that there is consensus against the material and it is against Wiki policies including WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Dismissing that as "the same old arguments" is not adding anything to the discussion, and is not taking anything away from the validity of those arguments. Just because a subject comments on a rumor does not elevate said rumor to biographical notability, regardless of the sourcing, particularly in a bio as brief and broad as this. If she stated something that reliable sourcing can prove she was incorrect about, then that is where sourcing debatably trumps other issues, but in this case, the notability of Barbara Walters has nothing to do with it. There is some material that, despite being accessible elsewhere in the media, will never be appropriate or properly weighted in so brief a biography. To the issue of "denying it herself", denying a rumor does not make it notable to someone's biography, as has been stated again and again.

Do not re-add this material or you will be in violation of WP:3RR as well as the consensus as painstakingly expounded on across the archives of this page. Abrazame (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of the regular editors trying to overrule the wishes of outsiders. See other comments in this section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) I would probably support a paragraph (not a section, that would be WP:UNDUE) of the rumor somewhere in the article, provided that it is reliably sourced, handled carefully, and makes explicit mention that the rumor is false (as the subject has denied it on at least one occasion). This rumor is obviously very high profile and is likely why many people are coming to this article. It has received coverage in multiple reliable sources and to exclude it is irresponsible and quite fansite-ish. Here's how I propose such a mention, with citations as well:

Throughout 2009, a rumor that Gaga was intersexual began circulating around the Internet after she was reportedly quoted by a gossip website as stating that she had "both a poon and a peener". Further speculation occurred after she updated her Twitter account with a message saying that she went home to perform autofellatio on her "hermie d*ck [sic]" after a concert. However, in a January 2010 interview with Barbara Walters on American newsmagazine 20/20, she claimed that the rumor was false, adding that while she at first found the rumor strange, she eventually didn't mind because she felt she portrayed herself as androgynous.

If more references could be found, that would be great. I'm not so sure about the reliability of Yahoo!, but I'm sure a more reliable source discussing the 20/20 interview could be found if it is not. The rumor definitely should be addressed in this article as it is very notable and has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Excluding it from the article would be like excluding the fact that Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation from his article. –Chase (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I went to great lengths to avoid WP:UNDUE on this, but it is worth a passing mention as it has become a notable urban legend that Gaga herself has commented on. The Snopes cite has a link to the video of the Walters interview, and is arguably the best single source in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying addressing the rumor would be undue weight, I'm saying a section would. I'm fine with how the rumor is addressed right now, but it needs to be moved to the main biography section (it has nothing to do with her musical style and/or influences) and the text needs to be edited to state that she was rumored to be intersexual. Hermaphrodite is a term used to refer to plants and animals, and I'm fairly certain Lady Gaga is neither... –Chase (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This was added to the Musical style and influences section since it seemed to fit in with the discussion of her sexuality there. However, it could be moved elsewhere, hopefully without setting off a fresh round of WP:BRD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I gather the initial quote was falsely attributed to her, but the new wording doesn't make that clear - given that both she and her management denied it, and that Snopes found the original source, perhaps rather than "she was reportedly quoted ...", we'd be better off with "after she was falsely quoted ...". It is a stronger claim, which is a problem, but based on Snopes and the official responses to the quote, it would be more accurate. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt in my mind the quote was false, the source even claims it came from a gossip blog which is totally unreliable. But as she has never said whether she said that or not, and she was reportedly quoted as saying such, we cannot say she was falsely quoted without proof. For all we know, she may actually have said that with a sarcastic sense of humor that was taken the wrong way. Unless she says that she never made that claim (as obvious as it may be), we cannot say she was falsely quoted. –Chase (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the MTV source being used as a reference states that her management team has "flat-out denied the story and the quote". While coming from her own lips would be better, that seems enough to make the stronger claim. - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason why this section should be removed. Wikipedia is not about which rumors are legit or not. Wikipedia is not about what is and not important information. Wikipedia presents all of the facts. The herm. rumor should be included into wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees is biased in favor of Lady Gaga, unless if you can present a legit argument.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not about what is and not important information." Since when wikipedia became a soapbox?
Anyway, I still don't see why it's so important to insert it here. Putting silly things that at the end of the day are not true just doesn't work for me. In the day that it reaches the level of the Lake Ness' monster then we can start to talk about notability. User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult would be the best person to shot it all down, but he seems to be off. So, since I'm the minority, I won't try to argue and leave it alone.

And please, put this information in her main biography above. There's no need for a personal life sections and also it accumulates too much fancruft. I think that it would be good for the article if we always try to follow great article examples such as Elvis Presley. Don't try to separate personal and professional lives because we do know that events will happen in the artist's ordinary life that would probably affect sales and etc and it would be hard to make it clever when the two things are separated. Sparks Fly 03:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I would not have added this unless Gaga had commented on it herself, which shows that she did not mind addressing an issue which was picking up a lot of media coverage in 2009, true or not. By all means move the information elsewhere in the article, but please don't remove it, or we will all be having the same debate next week and the week after that.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the two lines added for the legend is absolutely fine as it doesnot give WP:UNDUE importance. However, I have removed Personal life section and added the part in the influences, because being a gay activist and icon, is a part of the influence one indivitual has over the community. It should be there. Personal Life sections are target for fancruft and ultimately become hot-bed for gossip. Please see valid GA and FA class musician articles like Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Madonna, Kylie Minogue. I would just like to say that this discussion needs to end and not go on for infinite times. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I for one don't mind if it has a section of its own or it doesn't, as long as the information is kept there. The rumor stopped to qualify for WP:SOAP when it got coverage in reliable sources so it has to be here. --uKER (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a separate section is what is making it WP:UNDUE. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the rumors and sexual orientation stuff in the Musical style and influences section?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ianmacm, just because she dismissed the argument herself does not make it worth; she only said what she said because she was asked for, Barbara Walters could make any kind of rumor by herself in that minute and Gaga would obviously dismiss them. If she had any input of dismissing it by herself, with no one asking for, it would be a different history, maybe she even didn't know it in like, one minute before she was asked. But I'll say it again because it seems to have not worked: Since I'm the minority, I won't try to argue and leave it alone.

As I said before, put this information in her main biography section because it's where rumors appear to belong (see Michael Jackson, for example). Sparks Fly 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Sparks, I'll try to assemble it in the bio. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say any more about this, because there has been enough shin kicking about it already. However, some urban legends, like Paul is dead, attract enough attention to be notable in their own right. This is what has happened with the Lady Gaga hermaphrodite story, and it is interesting to hear what Lady Gaga had to say about it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition to early life and education

As a performer in high school, Lady Gaga appeared on the Regis High School stage, directed by James Lyness, choreographed by Kristin Cupillari, and under the musical direction of Jim Phillips. She played Filia in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum," and starred in "Guys and Dolls" as Adelaide. All involved agreed that she was destined for stardom. Jlyness (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

National Equality March photo—undo revert?

Previously, this photo Image:LadyGaga-EqualityMarch-Crop.jpg was included in the article. I think it should be added back once again, (second to last paragraph). It was last removed without explanation on 2 Februay 2010 by User:Tearitdownsmash.

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

In The Fame Monster (Super Deluxe/Box set version) there is a poem by Lady Gaga in it. After the poem, it credits her as "Joanne Stefani Germonatta". Just want to know which way is her name Joanne Stefani or Stefani Joanne. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"She is also inspired by fashion"

Okay, is there... any way, whatsoever... to word that less.. lame? Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read it. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

'She is also inspired by fashion, which she has said is an essential component to her songwriting and performances.' Agreed. Goes to ponder a rewording. SunCreator (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also found reading this akin to hitting a wall. I've adjusted the wording (and properly seperated the sales data from the 'inspiration' info). I had to fight every instinct in my being not to request citations for the statements about what inspires her.

So I'll let it be known here: Could someone who actually knows (or cares) about her please find a source for that information?
--K10wnsta (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I find no sources for that information. There is a bit in the main body of the article reads "fashion as a whole, have all been cited as inspirations as well", that cites http://www.prefixmag.com/news/lady-gaga-grace-jones-androgynous-robo-future-fash/26057/ (nothing there) and a dead link http://www.heraldsun.com.au/story/0,21985,25666920-2902,00.html, I guess the info came from the dead link? SunCreator (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A pop star who is not inspired by fashion is like a Pope who is not Catholic. The article is better off without fancrufty statements like this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Grace Jones inspiration is OK, because it involves a direct quote from Lady Gaga.[6] The section already says "Lady Gaga has stated that she is "very into fashion" and that it is "everything" to her", so there is a need to avoid overdoing the fashion influence angle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the bit in the ariticle, but the 'inspired by fashion' part in the WP:LEAD, that (appears) is not referenced in the article. SunCreator (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Times cite [7], Lady Gaga says “I’m very into fashion — I channel Versace in everything I do. Donatella is my muse in so many ways: she’s iconic and powerful, yet people throw darts at her. She’s definitely provocative, and I channel that more so than anything else.” This seems to cover the fashion statement in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please correct link

Please correct link nr. 33 with http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lady-gaga-makes-top-40-radio-history-62202332.html 80.126.124.145 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nymf _talk/contr. 15:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This gives the source as Interscope Records, which leads to a WP:SPS issue. Is this OK?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that WP:SPS is not okay. The Interscope Records release is self-promotional. World-wide figures are not easy to get wp:RS for, this issue is compounded here because in some regions The Fame Monster sales will be counted with The Fame sales and in other regions that are kept seperate. I suspect the World-wide sentence will eventually be removed as unsourceable and replaced with sales amount for different regions. SunCreator (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the source and sentence might be outdated anyway, as this reference says that the album has sold 8 million copies. It should probably be removed or rewritten. Nymf _talk/contr. 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good reference you turned up there. It says 8 million records, not useful for the 3 million copies of The Fame album but a good reference to perhaps add to the article elsewhere. SunCreator (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's the whole problem we got here then Daily News of New York City can solve it; In a little over a year, her debut album, "The Fame," has sold more than 8 million copies. Sparks Fly 19:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Although it seems unlikely that The Fame sold 8 mill worldwide, as opposed to shipped, I'll take teh reference as reported by a reliable source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Some backround information

Lady Gaga, who's real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, prefers to be called just Gaga. She thinks that Lady is too formal (considering the fact SHE makes her own name). She was born on March 28th, 1986. She is a Jewish Blonde (not a Brunette for those who thinks she is). Lady Gaga has a "thing" for the crazy styles. At the Grammy's of '10, she would've been ranked an "A". They loved the "Out of This World" dress, but didn't like the exaggerating make-up or heel-less shoes. Her following tours: "The Fame Ball Tour" and "The Monster Ball Tour" Please update this whenever you wish! 69.138.69.0 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Jasmine D.

Missing Persons

Additional inspiration and perhaps emulation of the 80's band "Missing Persons" more specifically lead singer Dale Bozzio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccuffster (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And why? Please provide reference. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding a Missing Persons album repeatedly to the article only casts more doubt upon this assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)