Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Here's Some Additional Information from Starting Career

Stefani Germanotta (who became Lady Gaga), was a Drama Student at NYU, in the Cap21 Vocal Theater Program. During her freshmen year (2004/2005) she competed in a talent show called Ultra Violet Live, where she performed two original songs, "Electric Kiss" and "Captivated." While involved in the talent show, she met Frankie Fredericks, a Music Business student from NYU. Fredericks began managing Germanotta, as well as booking her in local venues, including The Bitter End, Lion's Den (Now Sullivan Hall), and Rockwood Music Hall. Fredericks produced two recordings with Germanotta, the aforementioned "Electric Kiss" and "Captivated."

Together, Germanotta and Fredericks assembled a band, comprised of fellow NYU underground performers Eli Silverman, Calvin Pia, and Alex Beckmann, who Germanotta dated for several months. Germanotta caught the attention of industry professionals when she performed at a BMI songwriter showcase in New York. This ultimately landed her a production contract with establish producer Rob Fusari, which ultimately concluded her work with Frankie Fredericks, who has since founded Conar Records. Soon after she changed her performing name to Lady Gaga. She also dropped out of New York University once she began recording her debut album in 2007.

Also for correction, Stefani Germanotta was never a go-go dancer, though for a while she toured with Lady Starlight, who's day job was as a stripper. Perhaps that confused some sources.

I am not sure how to link in sources, but I also know each of these people personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalroots412 (talkcontribs)

This is original research if it comes from you. Can you find verifiable sources to back it up? tedder (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tedder, here are some sources I found, but not as ideal.

  • Article by Frankie Fredericks mentioning his connection:
    • excerpt: used Perez Hilton because of my own involvement in the music industry. While I run an independent record label these days, I used to work as a manager and booking agent, starting off with my client Stefani Germanotta. She got mentioned by then little-known blogger Perez Hilton under her pseudonym Lady Gaga. As he become increasing popular, his interest in Stefani also grew. The growth in incoming links was obviously giant, and his constant coverage was one of the foundational launches of her pop legitimacy, now with several #1 hits. They attended the Much Music Video Awards last night together.
  • Lady Gaga mentions being NYU Tisch drama student:

Musicalroots412 —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

'has been appreciated for her provocative sense of style and her influence'...?

Gaga has been introduced to a giant penis influenced by fashion and has been appreciated for her provocative sense of style and her influence on other celebrities. - really? Appreciated by whom? Influence on whom? No citation, perhaps because it is untrue, and definitely not a statement of fact that belongs in an introduction. Fancruft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

She wrote music for Blue Kids On The Block?

The article states she wrote music for established artists and includes NKOTB, but they were only active from 1984-1990, and she was born in 1986. (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should have read more into the NKOTB article, where it explains it. (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider creating a user, Anywho she wrote Big Girl Now which is feat. on their new album. Think more abstractly next time. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek Descent?

I read on a site that her mother is 100% Greek,father 100% Italian,making her 50/50. Sorry for lack of citation,just type "Is Lady Gaga Greek?"in a search engine and multiple citations should come up. --Krasi183 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Public image and media

This may be a section that should be included, but as it stands information on her hair color is irrelevant. I'm deleting it for now to clean up the article, but it would be nice if someone who knows more on the subject and its importance could come in and create a section that is of some value. (Lewzer99 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your contribution (now that was irrelevant). if you know Gaga well, then you should know that this is one quite a long story 9somone back me up here0. Any who the section, is needed. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find a proper spot for this. But, the article seems very bias. It's as if the idiot who runs perez hilton wrote it. Lady Gaga is musician. She is not a saint, and she's had a one year carrer creating music. This website is supposed to be an encylopedia, not a fan page. It seems as if her page was written by fans, not scholars. Address this.

Could you please give specific examples of bias in the article, maybe we can fix them. — R2 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New Section Ideas

Fashion - Lady Gaga has some of the most elaborate fashion sense of any artists to date but none of this is mentioned.

August Break- Lady Gaga's production managers gave her the month of August off work.

Business Endorsements: Beats by Dr.Dre are all seen in most of her music videos and promotional videos.

Haus of Gaga: Lady Gaga's creative team who has produced most of her stage outfits, short films, etc.

Backup Dancers: She knocked one of thems tooth out.

Personal Life: Dating a man named Speedy whom she met on the set of her new "LoveGame" music video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

sources are needed, guidelines are used to tell us what is encyclopedic. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 04:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


There is a difference between the two, so I think we should catogries them. I bring this up because of Gaga on ellen, in which she states ellen is an inspiration to her and the gay community. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 04:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can anyone think that Lady Gaga was influenced by David Bowie and Queen? It almost looks like more of the "this is what glam rock is" stuff that gets pushed into articles all over Wikipedia. (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably because she said they were her influences. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh sure, and maybe Hitler Hairdo were influenced by Radiohead. Maybe her name came from the song "Radio Gaga." (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it's written "Musically, she is inspired by glam rockers such as David Bowie and Queen...", which is inaccurate. It should read maybe "Visually, she is inspired..." Musically, Gaga's music is dance-house-eurodance, not glam. But her look is obviously glam inspired.

NewNowNext Award 2009

Lady Gaga was nominated for one.

Is their website a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I love it how her song titles and album are so original and not inspired by David Bowie at all.

She really does not compare to the latter individual in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

MMVA 2009 Nomination

Lady Gaga was nominated for MMVA this year! This should be added to Awards & Nominations —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Could you provide the source where you found it? Sparks Fly 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there on the wikipedia page for the MMVA's —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


The Fashion section needs to be updated. Its been long since the Christina mayhem and her fashion sense has appeared in media for other reasons also. Fame Ball tour fashion needs to be covered as is the controversy regarding the Hussein Chalayan ripp off bubble dress. Any thoughts? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually think all the fashion info needs to be dispersed into the main test of the article, not given it's own section. It's a violation of WP:UNDUE and is more likely to collect trivial info. — R2 11:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting thought. But do you think we can chip in the fashion comments in between the article? Wouldn't it seem too dispersed? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, it needs some comments about her negative fashion, there has been some critisim. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be much better to disperse the relevant info rather than give it an entire isolated section. — R2 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes but it would cluttered if you know what I mean. A new section should be about her music, well should it not? Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 05:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article. That Philanthropy section was completely necessary and has been merged to the main article. Also the section titled Fashion has been renamed as Inflences and styles because I believe it will later on deal with not only fashion but musical style, performance and influences of other artists. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a great addition, but the bubble dress has been mentioned in some interviews. She says she tried to buy it but it was too expensive so she made on herself. There are a lot of sources regarding her fashion people should look into them more often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth Year

How can she be born in 1986 and be 19-years old in 2007? I'm changing the first line of "music career" to "when she was 21". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that the person who added the year to the header was not the same person who wrote that sentence. She was signed to Def Jam when she was 19 (look at the source given[1]) but that was not in 2007. Siawase (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality, would die if not famous and likes girly me

She states her sexualitiy is private (BS) and yes she does like girly me and states she will die if not famous (OCD). Can it go on the article. Soures- - - Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing, the sources actually state Wikipedia, hence fails as RS. Also, too tabloidy to be worthy of WP:NOTABILITY. If there is any instance about Gaga being bi-sexual, however, speculations are not encyclopedic. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The quote about fame appear to originate from this [2] interview with The Independent, which is certainly a reliable source. However I don't think that particular quote carries a lot of WP:WEIGHT, but there might be other material in that article that woule be useful. Siawase (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is credible, yeah? (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course Rolling Stone is credible. And since in this month's Rolling Stone interview Gaga admitted many things about bisexuality I think it can go in the article. But before adding I want consensus regarding this from other editors also. So everybody, please put your valid inputs keeping in mind the BLP we aredealing with. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless she's had a public relationship with a woman I very much doubt her sexuality is that notable. It's really not that big a deal over her in Europe. — R2 10:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If reliable sources consider it important enough to discuss (which they do), then there is no reason to exclude this information here. Notability is anyway not a criteria for including information, only for deciding if a subject should have a separate article. Once notability is proven, all non-trivial sourced information should be used.YobMod 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) I agree that Rolling Stone passes the reliability test. As YobMod said, it's important enough to have been discussed in multiple reliable sources now. Based on that, it can go in. I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't go in. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However this should go under influences and no undue weight should be given. As I believe, from BLP point of view it is very trivial what is one's sexual preference. Hence, only that particular line from Rolling Stone, where she says she is turned on by beautiful women can go. Something like "Gaga has stated that she is bisexual in nature and cites beautiful women as one of her influences also" should be enough followed by the RS. By the way, the relationship with the drummer and his influence can be definitely added. --Legolas (talk2me)
These is no reason to exclude the information. Mentioning she's bisexual (and proud) doesn't mean we have to go on about it for five paragraphs. her support of LGBT social movements should also be mentioned as part of her influences. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa history

Need to mention also

Lady GaGa becomes just the third artist in the 16-year history of the Mainstream Top 40 airplay chart to collect three No. 1 songs from a debut album. "LoveGame" (Interscope) rises 2-1, marking Lady GaGa's third No. 1, following "Just Dance" (two weeks) and "Poker Face" (five weeks). The three songs appear on her top five Billboard 200 album, "The Fame." The set has sold 1,162,000 copies to date, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

source —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We should mention some really formidable feats:

In Canada, she has 3 number one singles and her first two, Just Dance and Poker Face have both gone six times platinum, something that no other artist has accomplished. Source:

Pokerface has the most radio airplay in history. (It was in an interview by MTV with GaGa on the set of Wale's Chillin' video when she explicitly said herself that Pokerface had set a record. If someone can find a reliable source, that would be great)

First artist in nearly ten years to have his/her first two singles hit Number one. Source:

Madonna and her daughter Lourdes, Zac Posen, and Cyndi lauper attended her New York City show at Terminal 5 and Perez Hilton and Kanye West attended her Los Angeles show at the Wiltern Theater. Source: AND —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

today she is now 24 years old —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles implies that she both graduated from NYU and withdrew early to pursue a career. azerbo (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable citation

'Alongwith Christina, her image and fashion sense has been channeled by other celebrities like Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie'

- yes... according to a university newspaper (citation 53).

I think the word 'allegedly' belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding External Link

i'd like to add a link to the external links section. I have put together my own wiki just for music videos and would like to add a link to this artist's page on my wiki.

to comply with COI rules, i am posting the link here for review of other editors for inclusion.

thanks. --Terrestri (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know if I'm doing this right. I need help on how to edit on Wikipedia. Correct me if any of this is wrong. I wanted to say that Lady Gaga is also on Facebook:

thanks. --Theyoungcookie

Rolling stone image of Gaga

I added the image and it was taken off, due to it does not have encyclopedic value. I think it does. Image-File:GagaRollingStone.jpg Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 05:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It has no encyclopedic value unless third party sources comment on the photograph itself as they did for Janet Jackson and Britney Spears. Those were two of the most widely discussed covers in the magazine's history. So far, nothing encyclopedic has been said about Gaga's cover. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, also the Poker Face image should not be added in the article as it is strictly for that article and is of no encyclopedic value at all in relation to the BLP article. If third party coverage regarding the RS cover releases, then it can go in the article. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are third party sources- Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 07:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But none of them assert notability that the image is of encyclopedic value. All of them simply say that Gaga posed semi nude for the cover. Refer to the Janet Jackson or the Britney Spears article where you'll understand why those two images were used. Lets see what other editors have to say on this matter. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I have however added it on the RS artcile. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not notable for the rolling stone article either. Hundreds of artists have posed nude for them. There are very few covers which have become notable for the magazine and Lady Gaga isn't one of them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, it will take several years for the notability of the Rolling Stone cover to be asserted anyway. It has to have some cultural relevance. — R2 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not completely relevent, but if you look closely its a plastic, see-through corset with plastic bubbles affixed to it... Idk fashion is big to me and to say its just bubbles bugs me. (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WE could relate it to her bubble dress, can the image be used anywhere??? Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a Thierry Mugler bubble corset. So says Rolling Stone. Also the metal suit she wears in paparazzi is designed by Thierry Mugler. Perhaps Thierry Mugler should be mentioned as a notable designer? (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GaGa or Gaga

Which is the 'official' name: GaGa or Gaga? I've seen both used equally, and I think it should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on this talk page suggests it's Lady Gaga, but honestly, it's nothing to get wrapped up about in my humble opinion. — R2 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The real song, Radio Ga Ga. She is Lady Ga Ga. Besides, I call her Lady Gag cuz she sucks and freddie mercury rocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vocal Range

If anyone knows it I think it should be added to the little section below her picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely, where is the source? Sparks Fly 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga, range vocal D3-B5 = 2,7 octaves (youtube) Angel310--Angel310 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination

I believe after refreshing the influence section and the LEAD, the article should be ready for GAN. What do you all say? --Legolas (talk2me) 06:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead definitely needs beefing up, it is not an accurate overview of the article. The article also needs a copy edit and references should be formatted correctly, if they are not already. — R2 13:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I formatted the references correctly while cleaning up the article. So thats done. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 13:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, maybe we should work on the lead is a subpage of this talk page. Say Talk:Lady Gaga/Lead. — R2 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya sure. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll set up the page and watchlist it. I'll be able to work at it over the next few days. We should keep discussion of the proposed new lead over there. — R2 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tour with Kanye West

Theres been news of this plastered all over the internet.

Word is it wont be part of the "Fame Ball". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently added paragraph

On June 9, 2009, Tapulous, a video game developer and publisher, released a video game for the iPhone OS platform featuring Lady Gaga. It is the first and only of its kind for the artist. Entitled Lady Gaga Revenge, the game is a part of the Tap Tap series of rhythm games. As a promotion for Lady Gaga Revenge, Tapulous offered a contest to win four backstage passes to a Lady Gaga concert, in which fans would meet her. Participation in the contest required the submission of high scores for all songs featured in the game. Tapulous also offered a thirty-day giveaway of autographed The Fame albums to other fans who submitted scores. In an interview with USA Today, Gaga mentioned, "[m]y record label might kill me for saying this, but you are essentially purchasing my album for $4.99 and you are also getting a game. So you are getting way more bang for your buck.

This was recently added to the article. I'm not of the opinion it has any place on her biography. Thoughts? — R2 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some serious tone issues there. If the only reliable third party source for this is one sentence in USA Today maybe it should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. Even if more sources can be found it's way too long right now, at the very least it needs to be cut down and the tone issues addressed. Siawase (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Case of WP:UNDUE. One line is enough. --Legolas (talk2me) 01:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, we have realted articles.Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion and the fact that the sources aren't great, I've removed the paragraph. — R2 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hi guys, I'm the author of the paragraph. Can it be expanded upon how there are tone issues here? Also I figured the paragraph was warranted (I certainly wasn't trying to bring undue weight by doing something like creating its own section or listing it in the lead), seeing as how it's sort of a big deal for her to have her own video game. This information can be substantiated from reliable, third-party sources. In addition, if the USA Today source is read, it's evident that it's not simply a one sentence mention as referred to by Siawase. It's at least a full paragraph there. There are plenty of other third-party sources to verify the coverage of this that I've listed below. I've also listed official Lady Gaga sources to show the significance of the game to her career.

Reliable, third-party sources to verify coverage:

Sources to verify the significance of the game to Lady Gaga:

I'll add this article to my watchlist, so feel free to respond. Thanks! -Brian Reading (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? Brian Reading (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Since, I take the non-discussion on here as a no objection to adding this content back, I went ahead and did some minor rewording, added some more reliable sources, and added it back to the article. Brian Reading (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The video game has nothing to do with Gaga's professional career. Removed. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 18:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course this information has a lot to do with her professional career. Did you even bother to read any of the press releases, etc.? Secondly, even if it didn't have to do with her professional career, that's irrelevant. It's simply not a standard for inclusion. I've given plenty of discussion on this. Care to give any valid reasoning? I urge you to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, as most other arguments are moot. Brian Reading (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, because a video game which Gaga had no part in creating has so much to do with her professional career. /sarcasm
If you really want this on Wikipedia, put it where it's more relevant, like the article for The Fame. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Looking at the paragraph, I am sure this is a case of WP:UNDUE however many reliable sources report. Not everything associated with the artist can be encyclopedic. And this one was certainly no. I believe a consensus had been achieved beforehand on this matter. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but this conversation had been up for a while before I went ahead and went with adding it back to the article. If you honestly believe that a musician having their own video game is unencyclopedic, it's one thing, but what else am I supposed to do when there is no discussion going on here? Can you give some reasoning as to how this is undue weight? Other video games starring major musicians like Hannah Montana (video game), 50 Cent: Bulletproof, Journey Escape, Spice World (video game), and Michael Jackson's Moonwalker even have their own articles, some of which have been up for years, and have been edited by many different authors. Basically what releases qualify as worthy for inclusion? I really hope there is someone that will talk to me with this instead of just reverting and posting snide comments. Brian Reading (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello? Anyone out there? I have raised new issues, and asked new questions. Legolas? Pokerdance? Brian Reading (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


"Gaga became involved in a relationship with a heavy-metal drummer named Luke" No last name of "Luke" or why it's important Cohdblu (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Because according to the third party sources Rolling Stone, Gaga list him as an inspiration behind her debut album. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


I think it would be more appropriate to refer to this woman as Germanotta in this article rather than Gaga since Germanotta is her real name. (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

She's better known as Gaga, and that's why that name is used (excluding the portion of her bio from before she adopted the stage name.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. See WP:SURNAME. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of Germanotta is nonsense. All musicians and artists who have stage names are listed on wikipedia under their adopted name, not their birthname (check, e.g., Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, David Bowie, Elton John, and so on, and so on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deflem (talkcontribs) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Influences and style"

There are a few problems with this section, as well as the "Live performances" and "Music video" sections in her song articles (for comparison, I used Beyonce Knowles and Trouble):

  • Does it really matter what she wears when she's singing? She's a singer, not a model.
  • It reads like an essay and is POV'ed in the respect that it keeps mentioning POV quotes instead of NPOV'ing them and working them into the prose.
  • The sections go into unnecessary detail about her clothing and her music videos.

I am a terrible cutter, and that is why I've put these problems on the talk page. Thanks, Clem (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Part of her persona as a performer is her recognizably unusual sense of dress. Direct quotes when attributed to a reliable source are not POV, you are presenting the ideas of a critic to the reader. If a majority of critics take time to comment on her fashion, then that is a majority view point and is not POV or original research. All musicians articles go into detail about aspects of their career that are central to their public image. In this case, a big aspect of Lady Gaga's image as evidenced by most reliable sources that cover her events, comment on her style of dress. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself Bookkeeper. I do agree that we shouldn't give the fashion stuff undue weight, but since it is such an important part of her public persona, I don't think we have any problems yet. — R2 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I also very much agree with Bookkeeper. Gaga is one of those artists who takes as much pride in the visuals aswel as the music. • вяαdcяochat 06:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree book, fashion is like a part of Gaga, she would not be Lady Gaga without it. :) Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GA nomainted

Article nomianted, please disscus ANY new info. (MAJOR EDITS) that may go on. After review more "radicle" edits can be undertaken. Minor editsare fine. Thanks and I hope it passes :) Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow. We are still working on the article... — R2 13:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but there was no-one disscusing. And I have wanted the article to go to the GA quickly. I do not see any improvments needed. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
We should not rush into things so quickly. The article certainly needs improvement. I intend to work on some grammar. • вяαdcяochat 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
please discss said grammar. I am intending to re-submit it. I think I have the right too? Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sigh.. You have the right to submit it but good luck with it passing. We should take our time if we wish to achieve the best possible outcome. • вяαdcяochat 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
*roll eyes*... the review will show improvments needed and then we can change it. So article will be nominated. - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 03:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but as Realist said we are still working on the article. It should be nominated when each of us feel as though it is worthy to be an actual candidate. There is no point submitting if we know deep down that it can be improved. • вяαdcяochat 03:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully and understand what you mean, I give all my repects but I believe it is more then ready. I think the reviewer can decided. I do have a bit of a problem with WP:GA? point number- 5. stable. So if you and others think it will fail this then I will automatically withdraw it, or withdraw it and leave me message with disscusion. - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 03:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Disscusion here: Talk:Lady_Gaga/GA_Nomination - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talkcontribs)

Wow!!!! Who the hell told you to nominate? Its Realist who should nominate it. The article is far from ready and you go ahead and nominate it for what reasons that simply escape me. Your hastiness is again starting to come back Dance-pop. --Legolas (talk2me) 16:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't think we should nominate it until we all agree that it's ready. We have 4/5 regulars on this page, we should wait until we are all (or at least the vast majority) agree it meets the GA criteria. I'm pretty free from Sunday to Wednesday, so I can really work at it then. — Please comment R2 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, he didn't inform anyone that he was intending to nominate the article and acted like a drama queen when we all disagreed. I am not a regular editor of the biography page but am of the singles so I'm not sure if i'm entitled to have a say in this discussion. I think I should leave it to you guys. • вяαdcяochat 00:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I thought I should of. We discussed it back there at the lead, it was the only thing that needed fixing and in a period of at least a week there was no communication; so I thought I should. I am more then entilited too- Legalos; we are disscusing the nomination not me. I do not think I should be criticized or judged, since last year I have been a frequent ip here contributing alot. So I am entilited. "Who the hell told you to nominate?" --I do not think this is quiet appropriate. Nor is it appropriate to withdraw someones nomination. I have created a discussion. The person who first created the article should get the credit ( I have no idea who that was). - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talkcontribs)

The soxred tool clearly shows that its Realist who has contributed the most in the article. It doesnot matter how many contributions you made by IP. And calling me Legalos doesnot help either, unless you want to be blocked for sockpuppetry again. The article is still far from GA worthy and I'll remove the nomination again. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

LegOlas calm down. I am not a sock, and calling me one does not help. You knbow I have been here a long time (and have contributed more then enough). If I wish to nominate I will. Please keep your comments to the user talk pages. Thank you. - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 04:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just because someone has the most edits does not mean they have contributed the most. - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 04:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New York University Disambiguation

This article does not clarify if Lady GaGa did or did not receive a degree from NYU.

"After receiving a degree in music from New York University...."

A few paragraphs later it reads, "At the age of seventeen she gained early admission to the New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, where she studied music.[7] She honed her writing skills by composing essays and analytical papers focusing on topics such as art, religion and socio-political order.[15] However, she withdrew from New York University."

Something doesn't make sense. Also is it necessary to know about her paper writing skills? Multislack (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

She recived a degree but later withdraw from further study. (I think) - We are the crowd -- We're c-comin' out *Paparazzi* Lady Gaga 04:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure if Lady Gaga graduated From NYU, however she attended Tisch and Tisch does not award music degrees, she may have studied song writing at Tisch, but she couldn't have studied music. I believe that she was in the CAP 21 program at Tisch, That is the music theatre studio. If she graduated from Tisch she would have received a Bachelor of Fine Arts Kadagan (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which songs did she write for Fergie and Britney etc?

Please someone add a section detailing Gaga's songs which she wrote for other artists. As mentioned in her biography she wrote for Fergie, Britney and Pussycat Dolls, but I cannot figure out how she was credited on their albums. What name did she use? Anyways, other songwriters have this detailed in their bios. Would be nice to have a quick reference.

The actual song titles of the tracks she wrote for Fergie and Britney aren't that necassary on the article in my opinion. • вяαdcяochat 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is, atleast some song. Now it just seems like something of an urban legend that she has written material for other people before her stardom. Atelast what record and/or what name she is signed on the songs would be something --EzelMannen (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
All I know is that the song she wrote for Britney is a Europen bonus track on Circus. But it's not necessary to include which songs she wrote as none of them have received significant media coverage. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 16:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not the standard for inclusion here. That's more of the standard for an article topic, not an article's content. It would be perfectly acceptable to add this information to the article. Brian Reading (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Article to be nominated. --R.I.P. Michael :( 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no sorry! There is still work to be done. Didn't you learn from the previous discussion? • вяαdcяochat 05:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Opps, I thought I was entieled? *sigh* times 2--R.I.P. Michael :( 05:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can see most users disagree with you including myself. Be patient. The time will come when the article is ready. • вяαdcяochat 05:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
To the nominator, you should respect the decision of your fellow editors and not nominate this article for GAN until they agree it's ready. You are entitled to nominate the article, but there is solid consensus to not nominate it as it still needs work. Acting against consensus and continually nominating of the article is getting disruptive. I urge you to withdraw the nomination. — Σxplicit 06:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Explicit. Hopefully your words are more clear to the nominator than what mine were. • вяαdcяochat 06:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you disagree and think more work is to be done then adequate discussion should be undertake. It is not therefore I believe it is necessary to nominate this article. 12:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

← I've brought this issue at WP:GAN's talk page, and can be found here. — Σxplicit 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the unresolved issues with the past two discussions on this matter? If you don't mention what specifically needs to be fixed before bringing the article to GA, how can you expect other editors to know when it passes the "GA bar", from your perspective? The past two discussions appear to contain more ownership issues than anything else. To be fair, there is one comment that the grammar still needs work. Is that the sticking point, or something else? From a quick look, it appears the lead doesn't cover her early life (which could be covered in 1 or 2 sentences) and that the references don't all contain similar information (like date of publishing), which are other possible issues. I am, however, glad to see that it is still possible within wikipedia to have multiple editors work on an article at once. You don't see that much in the met/TC projects. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that the GA review is done, you all know what needs to be done to improve the article rather than general guesswork. As others have commented, civility is best when working with other editors. Laughing and insults have little to do with productive collaboration. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Musician vs. singer-songwriter

Please make yourself familair wioth the article musician. Thank you. --R.I.P. Michael :( 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the term "musician" can lead to much misinterpretation. It can be defined as many things. Even simply a person who plays a musical instrument. Gaga obviously does much more than that. It may remain but singer-songwriter must also be included to avoid confusion. I don't get why you have heavily intended to be a disrupt lately. You are really causing problems not just for me, but for other frequent users working on this area of Wikipedia. I would advise you to stop. Your sockpuppet characteristics have once again began to showcase. • вяαdcяochat 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Your acting like a drama queen. We must be grammatically correct. --R.I.P. Michael :( 13:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion relates to the appropriate choice of wording. Why don't you just permit the incorporation of both singer-songwriter and musician both into the one sentance. That way it will please everybody. • вяαdcяochat 22:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the use of 'recording artist'? It covers all musician, singer and songwriter. — Σxplicit 22:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In addition to the fact that the info box is used for a list of specifics: singer, songwriter, musician, etc. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Book no it does not specify. Recording artist refers to someone who records a single. --R.I.P. Michael :( 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talkcontribs)
Recording artist covers a wide variety of people who either sing, songwrite, rap, play musical instruments or any combination of the former. And, even by your logic, Lady Gaga had recorded a number of singles. And as I said, the specifics are listed/can be listed in the infobox. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay agreed. --R.I.P. Michael :( 07:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Musical and videography styles/themes sections

New sections that could be added.--Officially I am not Cloverfield Monsta I need help with this 05:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talkcontribs)

Not enough info. She only has 7 or 8 official videos, that too hasnot sparked that much interest regarding the style. Her vocal abilities have been appreciated but still not enough for a new section. The vocal range can be added though in the influences section. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to rename the section "Musical style, performance, and image". She has enough commentary to analyze her music, voice and stage persona. You could even copy and paste info from the various singles articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think performance will come under styles. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Music samples

for article is requested.--Officially I am not Cloverfield Monsta I need help with this 08:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talkcontribs)

Awards & Noms

She was Nominated for 5 Teen Choice Award categories I think that should be added.

Sources.--Legolas (talk2me) 11:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources: --Officially I am not Cloverfield Monsta I need help with this 04:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talkcontribs)

Kanye & Gaga Tour Dates Announced

Maybe this should be added to The Fame Ball or Discography Here are some possible sources.

No, unreliable sources. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaked demo?

According to Perez Hilton, the "Second Time Around" track making the rounds on the internet is an early demo.[3] Is he sufficiently reliable for this sort of item, and if so, what kind of mention, if any, do we want in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton is not reliable at all. Secondly, per WP:CRYSTAL BALL we generally don't report future events, especially when it comes to music related articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Also per WP:UNDUE even if its confirmed, I donot think a casual single deserves mention, maybe for the discography page but not this one. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think it belongs in the article, but since at least one editor had tried to add it already, I wanted to get some discussion and see what consensus is. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is worthy any mention in any article related to Lady Gaga. Honestly, there are many tracks recorded by her that have been leaked. What is so special about this one? • вяαdcяochat 04:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Can someone add a picture off her 2007 Performance at Lollapalooza, I think thats moderatley important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupation dispute

Do we really need to include "DJ" and "Go-Go dancer" to Gaga's occupation list? They may be backed up by a source, but they are not notable jobs that Gaga has fulfilled. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda neutral on the subject. She took these jobs to become notable in the underground scene in order to further her career in entertainment. These weren't as non-notable as working in fast food. In any case, if they aren't mentioned in the infobox, they should at least be mentioned in the body of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
2005–2007: Career beginnings section refers to her DJ, Go-Go dancing days and there is evidence of notability on the subject given the reviews of her performances with Lady Starlight. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
They're mentioned in the article, and they're not quite notable enough to be counted as one of her major occupations. By major, I mean including in the infobox. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems fine by me. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that notability is only a requirement in determining whether a topic merits its own article. A piece of content in a legitimate article need not be notable to be allowed in that article. As per WP:N: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." Brian Reading (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Red & Blue EP?

In 2006, Lady GaGa (under the name 'Stefani Germanotta') released a 5 track EP called 'Red & Blue EP', and I think that it should be added to her discography section and career beginnings section. I don't have full information about the production of the EP but I feel it is necessary to add because it is a work of Lady GaGa. (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It merits a mention in the career beginnings section, however it is by no means official discography and therefore does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) for it to have its own page or a listing in discography.


From experience I know that listing artist genres is scrutinized as POV, but considering how Gaga's singles pages have been indisputably marked as "electropop", this genre should be added to the infobox since this is the dominant genre in her official discography until now. Imperatore (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since a rather large majority of genres are found in her music, broader terms must be used. That is what I think anyway. • вяαdcяochat 22:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But how is "electronic dance music" more broad than electropop? Imperatore (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Because its a subgenre of the over arching electronic dance. And Pop is mentioned as her primary classification. Pop/electropop would be redundant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of, I'm not sure if the term "electronic dance music" is supposed to be a combination of electronic music and dance music; I believe the word "electronic" was solely added to make it differ from regular dance music. I still think it should be listed as "[[electronic dance music|dance]], [[electronic music|electronic]]". Just a thought. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That's redundant if you're linking to electronic dance. Just combine them. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section

I believe that a separate section called personal life is highly unnecessary and should be moved into the main biography as is done in other FA bio articles on musicians like Janet Jackson and Michael. Also, when there is hardly anything to warranty sections, there is no need of separate the influences into such paragraphs. Let us reach a consensus on this since User:Pokerdance is changing the structure. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A personal life section is in many notable people's articles (for example, Miley Cyrus), I don't understand why you are so opposed to it. This article could become featured even with a section like that. There was nothing wrong with the sub-sections of her public image, see Megan Fox which appears to be a well-written article. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 03:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Its not only me, but I'm sure there are other users who oppose the idea of a personal life section, as you can see that your changes were already reverted. And I'm not opposed to the sub-sections in the musical style region, but opposing that it should be done at this point since there is not enough material to warranty such sections and makes the article appear more as a Directory. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, Fox and Cyrus' articles are not written in biography structure, they are just separate sections illustrating separate points of their lives. Hence it may appear to be suitable in those article, but certainly not in Lady Gaga, where the article is correctly structured. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
According to the GA review where many structural flaws were noted - most of which have not been fixed - this article is not correctly structured either. But regardless, I don't see a problem in a personal life section. Please point out where it says that those sections prevent an article from being well-structured. Do not bring up the Michael and Janet points again; not all articles are the same, and not all good articles have to have near-identical structure. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 04:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section are a hot bed for misplaced WP:FANCRUFT. Anything worth mentioning outside of her career can be mentioned in the chronological order of her life story rather than giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Two sentences per section simply is not enough to warrant an individual subection. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because GA or not, personal life sections will be a section full of every bit of relationships and flings and fancrufts, she ever had with any guy or girl. Biography articles need to be structured like biography, not separate sections illustrating this and that. Any relationship of hers is a part of her life and doesnot need to be given undue weightage. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, Megan Fox is a prime example of WP:UNDUE. The woman have been in over 12 films, in addition to her television appearances and yet the structure of her article immediately draws attention to her representation in mass media? This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. An actor's encyclopedic entry should primarily focus on their filmography and their critical reception as an actor, not gloss over it like an afterthought. The applies to Lady Gaga: who she dates or who she looks like should not draw away attention from her career, which is why she is notable enough to have an article in the first place. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I oppose. In order to develop a quality article, keeping this as encyclopedic as possible would be most preferable. Personal life may attract gossip or fancruft. • вяαdcяochat 09:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Lady Gaga won an ESKA award in Poland. If Katy Perry's section includes her ESKA award for Best Int'l album, I'm sure there are plenty of sources. Here's a source, ESKA's official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

She was also nominated for 5 Teen Choice Awards , and thats a notable award show and I know for a fact that there are more than enough sources for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Album/Single Sales

Album sales now stand at 3 million worldwide and single sales are 20 million worldwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On 2009 Lady Gaga Released Her Second Album Called "Disco Heaven". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg200 (talkcontribs) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote box

I have changes the quote box in the Musical style section to a blockquote. It was looking completely cluttered with another music sample box present in it. We have to keep in mind that not everyone reads teh article with the same browser settings. Anybody with a resolution low than 800x600 will have the two boxes overlap each other. Hence it has been changed for the same reason. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I reverted a previous similar edit of yours because it was plopped somewhere. This time around, I just re-wrote the section a little bit to create better flow. POKERdance talk/contribs 05:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with the gay community

Ok. last night I made a new subsection ===Relationship with the gay community===. I saw someone removed it and cited that it would essentially be giving them UNDUE weight as fashion and other artists have influenced her too and that the size of each of the aforementioned were the same paragraph size as the gay community paragraph. Now, while I agree that this is true, I believe that the impact on her success from the gay community is huge and does deserve its own subsection. The gay community's critical help (night clubs and such) lead her to her fame. She's said this many times, in MTV interviews and as she was receiving her award at the VMA's --- their help on her success; she wouldn't be where she is now if it weren't for "God & the gays." This, therefore, has more impact on her success than just fashion & other artist's inspirations. Also, all of her inspirations... I must say, Lady Gaga is very much her own type of genre; she's a mix of techno & pop so while she has said that (ex. Madonna) has inspired her, she is very much unique and the gay community is critical in that sense and it should be noted in the article. Thanks Tommy talk 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While she's certainly received support from the gay community, it wouldn't be accurate to imply that they're 'responsible' for the majority of her fame. She's a very mainstream recording artist who's found plenty of success with people regardless of their sexual preferences. Gaga is also certainly not in "her own genre"; I don't mean that as a slight toward her, either, as I'm a fan. You yourself used 'a mix of pop and techno' to describe her, and that same label could be used to describe many other modern artists. Also, the pop part of that implies in itself that her music reaches a very broad audience; this is true, and it's misleading and incorrect to include subsections that could make her look like a gay niche artist. She's on Akon's label, which makes her far from that. None of the information whatsoever was removed from the article, it was simply included in the "style and influences" section where it clearly fits without the need for its own questionable subsection. Josh (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean she is a gay niche, I'm just saying that it should be noted that the gay community's success has drastically helped her propel to the mainstream. She's thanked them several times in interviews and such... and I mean her music, yes the akon part is very true, but still, when you listen to LoveGame and Poker Face.. Just Dance... I mean I first heard her music and the first thought that hit me is "omg, she is SO bffs with so many gays." ... while I know that doesn't mean anything for Wikipedia's purposes, the point is, she has thanked them repeatedly for their help. Tommy talk 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As you stated, that clearly means nothing to Wikipedia's standards. Also, as was stated, every bit of the information is still noted in the article, it just doesn't necessitate its own subsection. Josh (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but still, when you read that section, it talks about influences, then goes into fashion... and then you have this big paragraph that exclusively talks about her and the gay community. It doesn't read correctly. Tommy talk 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The para doesnot necessarily talk about the relationship with the gay community, rather the community's influence on her. Hence I feel that the heading can be Influence of the gay community. I do agree with Tommy that the para needs its own section as it tends to go in a loop. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The heading title is poorly worded and sounds like it implies her having a strong influence over gays and not another way around. This factor still isn't major enough to be given its own subsection. If you feel the pacing is off then edit the information to properly fit. Even the original editor admitted his reasoning "doesn't mean anything for Wikipedia's purposes". The subsection is misleading, unnecessary, and needlessly controversial, and while the information is certainly worth including it should not be cut aside to be centered on by itself. Josh (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It says Influence of not on. What is there not understandable about it? The subsection is not controversial and not unnecesary. The influence of the LGBT community on her work and life has been discussed in profoundness. Since the section is too long compared to the other two about music and fashion, it has been separated into another sub-section. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Josh, you're missing my argument. While I admitted in my own opinion that her music has some influence from the gay community, the fact that she has thanked them more than any one else for her success is not controversial, yes? Tommy talk 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree (somewhat) with Josh. She's thanked the gay community, but she's also discussed in spades how deeply she's affected by fashion and her reasons for creating Haus of Gaga. The section on the gay community actually isn't longer than the section on fashion/image which is why I consider them to have equal weight. In any event, the primary emphasis on this section should be an analysis of the sound and structure of her music, not just her influences. Having it as a subsection isn't controversial, just undue weight. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why have a subsection? She is just as influenced by fashion (if not more) than she is by gays. If you are going to create a subsection for her relationship with that particular community, then I suggest we make one for fashion aswel. • вяαdcяochat 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Which, incidently, is another issue: either have three separate subsections (musicians/fashion/LGBT), or one section; I of course, prefer the latter. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I won't push this.. for now. But she will thank the gays again in the future and then I'm gunna say 'told ya so!' :P tommytalk2me 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt she's going to go down in history as one of the biggest gay icons the world has ever seen, but she's still in her infancy in that sense...give it time. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, will do. I have high hopes for her. :) tommytalk2me 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

gay rights rally

Hello & good morning my fellow editors! I'm bacck with more evidence (sooner than I thought!) that the gay comm should have its own subsection. On Sunday, in Washington, DC, the following were a direct quote from Miss Gaga at the gay rights rally:

Before walking off the stage, she proclaimed emphatically:

So, can we noww please have a subsection? Thanks tommytalk2me 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Added, unless anyone would like to dispute the significance of her speech above. tommytalk2me 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:RECENTISM: Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention. Established articles may be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens, new articles may be created on flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on timeless facets of a subject which Wikipedia consensus had previously recognized may be muddled by this practice.
Lady Gaga has been in the public eye for a little over a year and she is still primarily known for being a musician, not a gay rights advocate. I'm not saying she isn't one, anyone can join the cause, but keep in mind the historical perspective. She is not in league with Harvey Milk, Bayard Rustin, Coretta Scott King or even Judy Garland or Madonna in terms of her impact on gay speech, no matter how heartfelt, isn't going to change that overnight. The subject matter is still undue weight in comparison with the actual reason as to why she's notable (her music).
If you want a subsection, it has to be in balance with other subsections on her music, not stand out. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel shot down again. haha Okay, I'm sorry. I just thought that quote would seal the deal but ok, I understand that logic, it makes sense now. tommytalk2me 00:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

2009- 2010

lady gaga comes out with her new album called the fame monster priemiers nov. 23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster is a re-issue of The Fame. Dt128 let's talk 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Minor quibble, but the line "in a comic stint with Madonna" should read "in a comic skit with Madonna". A stint is a period of time. A skit is a short performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll goand change it. :-) --Legolas (talk2me) 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Influences

Lady GaGa declares herself as a "bisexual" in the magazine "Rolling Stone". There have been rumors about the "True sexuality" of the singer Lady GaGa. She's been accused for being "Homosexual", but in the "Open Air Glastonbury Festival" when she was about to start his routine it seems that her dress was too tigh and showed a "Penis" in an interview she declared to be "Hermaphrodite" "Its not something that Im ashamed of, just isnt something that i go around telling everyone. Yes. I have both male and female genitalia, but i consider myself a female. Its just a little bit of a penis and really doesnt interfere much with my life." - Lady Gaga

Sighhhh. Please see above sections and archives. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As the topic is not even to find in the last section of the archives, this is asking a little lot. The discussion is here, and I do think that finally a clear majority supported the rumor to be mentioned. Repeated requests confirm this. --KnightMove (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to have been a very good hoax. (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Source? I'd like proof of this.

Yeah why isnt ther anything about her being a hemaphrodite... she even made her declaration... if you guys are realy fans of her you should know this... i barely even follow her at all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Lady Gaga has said in a number of interviews that she was NOT born in Yonkers.

The rumors? No! People say I'm from Yonkers, that's the worst rumor!

— Lady Gaga

Coltycolt (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First artist with four number ones from debut

It's all in this link...

It should be included as part of "The Fame" section on her page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This has happened after 17 years. This clearly emphasizes on her successful debut. Should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Red and Blue EP?

She released an EP as Stefani Germanotta... Not too many reliable sources that I found to back this up, but it's been leaked (including cover art) and the songs are on YouTube. Perhaps worth a mention in the article? Some say it was a 2006 release... One article claims a 2005 release. Seems they only pressed about 100 copies though, so notability may be sketchy. Tehae (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed time and again that its not-notable. Please check the archives for the discussions on this. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Musical styles and influences

Most of the opening passage of this section is pure drivel, and almost all of it either unquantifiable posturing or bafflingly sycophantic comparisons. Add to this the fact that a couple of sentences appear run together and do not make a bit of sense:

"She has often been likened to Blondie singer Debbie Harry, and artist Andy Warhol, poet Rainer Maria Rilke, fashion icon/actress/singer Grace Jones, and fashion as a whole, have all been cited as inspirations as well."

Aside from not making grammatical sense the sentence is technically false as well. She has not been "often" likened to Rilke (a baffling suggestion). Similarly, comparisons to Warhol only persist because she is the one making them. It does not behoove this site to applaud someone like Lady Gaga for leeching off the image of a long-dead artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinnerAtTheApollo (talkcontribs) 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

early life

Roman Catholic should be linked. After all, the school she went to was Catholic, hence formative influence - wikilinking is the least that could be done. Same goes for Madonna fyi. (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Can someone with access change "deamier side of fame" to something that makes sense? Think it's meant to be "seamier"

Per The Fame Monster ¶2, it was supposed to be "darker". Fixed. Jbarrett (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

electropop Aaronallknowingone (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


LG's ip address

my thought is there is a specific change somewhere to yonkers, if so, we need to hide it for her saftey (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC) rankun


Tonight on the Jay Leno show, she said something about being frustrated at being unable to get changes to her Wikipedia article to stick. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) not from yonkers

She appeared on The Jay Leno Show tonight, and said she was not from Yonkers. She specifically complained that this article said Yonkers, but she couldn't change it. (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa is not from Yonkers!!

She just said on the Jay Leno show that she tried to come here and change it herself! LOL (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is from Manhattan not Yonkers, as she stated on the show tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missmorrow7 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa was born in Manhattan, New York thanks.. SHE IS AWESOM!!!!!!!!!

Lady Gaga was not born in Yonkers NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


If the person whom the article pertains to goes on national television and mentions that this particular is incorrect than its pretty obvious that its incorrect. And I'm sure its clear what I'm referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it Obvious?

This girl is not from Yonkers or some other second-class town. If she was, she probably wouldn't be as confident and talented as she is. She is a product of both her hard work and her environment, which is Manhattan, aka New York County, which as we all know is the nice part of "New York City." Yonkers, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, North Jersey, and pretty much everything else surrounding Manhattan are real dumps, shit holes if you will, just being honest here. It would be nice to say this girl went "rags to riches", but that just almost never happens in real life. This whole Yonkers thing is a bad joke, and gives false hope to anyone lingering in other crappy towns thinking they could be the next Lady Gaga.

Request: Please add this photo of to Gaga article:

I was born in Brooklyn. People can be successful or failures no matter where they were born. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yonkers can finally go for good

The Billboard article still has the phrase "Yonkers-born" about her, but it's impossible to rule out that they used us as the source. Gaga flatly denied it on The Jay Leno Show last night (preview clip at

Leno: Now, what is the worst rumor about you...?
Gaga: That I'm from Yonkers... I love the Bronx, but I'm just not from Yonkers.

In the full interview, she said she grew up in Manhattan, but not that she was born there. Accordingly, I think the most accurate presentation is to show NYC as her origin in the infobox and leave the detail wording to say she was born in NYC and get no more specific than that. (Less awkward than born on date to x parents and grew up in NYC.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life???? does anyone know bout her personal life? boyfriends? sisters? brothers? friends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

- she has mentioned that she has a little sister, who dressed up as GaGa for Halloween. It was on some interview. She might have a brother too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The joke's on me?

On the Yonker's issue, we really don't know where Lady Gaga is from! If Wikipedia says Yonkers and Lady Gaga on a comedy show says Manhattan, whom should we trust? We need a better source. BTW, cheers from Mars! --Cryout (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Update Lady Gaga

She does have a sister. Her mother is alive and was at the Jay Leno show. She said she was NOT from Yonkers and that is believable since it came from her own mouth. She confirmed that she went to a catholic school and that her father had heart surgery with in the last few years. On her offical MOnster Ball tour website she has brown hair in one of her shoots. The shoot was for Vogue with Annie Lebowitz. So therefore it is official that she does in fact wear wigs. She also enjoys to drink from fancy tea cups on saucers. Finally she really likes Hello Kitty and recently celebrated H.K.'s 35 Birthday!!-Wishes and lots of Love GAGA from a FAshion Designer who is inspired by you everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolsademana (talkcontribs) 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Lady Gaga was not born in Yonkers, New York! She was born in the lower part of New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sap 030393 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What part of the current article do you disagree with, and what source can you provide to change it? —C.Fred (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
somebody look for her birth certificate. it will tell you which hospital she was BORN IN. now, if you want to know where she was raised in, it was the upper east side. now..... anybody remember her SNL performance where she sings about growing up in nyc. she states, "LENOX HILL". I.E., LENOX HOSPITAL, THAT'S THE UPPER EAST SIDE.

Lucky dog (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing Info From Early Career

This article outlines her pre-Gaga days, when Frankie Fredericks managed and book her. link here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammy Awards

Lady Gaga Won 58 Granny Awards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge she has not yet won any. SunCreator (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa Name

Her official stage name is Lady GaGa with capital Gs. - J4musicals —Preceding unsigned comment added by J4musicals (talkcontribs) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 3#GaGa vs. Gaga. The consensus reached there was to follow WP:CAPS and not use the internal capital, especially since there is inconsistency among her site, her label, etc. What new sources do you have that would change the situation? —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be at least a mention of those persistent rumors that she's transgendered?User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 02:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 4#Hermaphroditism rumours. If you can show that this is continuing to receive mainstream coverage, I'd say the issue should be revisited. If not, I expect consensus won't change. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


What's with the new picture? It shows her in an unusually pose, her hair is all over the place and the lighting makes it so you can't see her face very well. The old one ([5]?) was much better.

I would change it myself, but unforutally have not been "confirmed". Lukyzade (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. I had the same feeling about it. --Shadow (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable Appearance

It should be added to the main page that she appeared on MTV's Boiling Points before she became famous, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


What? Why? Yeah, Lady GaGa is so important we must prevent unregistered users from editing her page. You'd think this was Mandela's page bein vandalized by fuckin neo-Nazis or somethin. The free encyclopedia ANYONE CAN EDIT my ass. Yeah, you can edit it as long as it isn't an article about some pop star with a law firm and PR agency representing her. What a joke this place is-- where pop culture crap gets more attention than topics like history or politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether an article gets protected is a function of the amount of vandalism committed upon the article, not who represents the subject or the nature of the subject. If Gaga's article weren't a target for vandalism, it wouldn't be protected. The articles of politicians, scientists, and the like are protected if they are subject to vandalism. If everyone edited constructively, this wouldn't be a problem. That said, do you have a constructive contribution you'd like to make to the article? If so, I can help you make it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
My view is there are way to much protection of the Lady Gaga's articles. There are an extreme high amount of views and with that goes many edits but the % of vandalism is (or was when not locked) not to high. I wrote before about silly locking here. SunCreator (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There's protection here for a good reason: this article before its semi-protection was hit by loads and loads of rumors and vandalism (have a look at the archives for this talk page). This article is a biography on a living person, and the criteria for applying protection are lower (for good reason). I wouldn't dismiss the protection as "silly", especially when the article in question is about a living person and has been a victim of heavy vandalism (check out the talk page's history for vandalism and rumors posted here too as an indicator to how the article would be vandalized if unprotected). Also, Lady Gaga and her music are very popular and heard on radio a lot at the moment, and from past experience I know that currently-popular artists often get heavy vandalism to their articles. Finally, regarding "extreme high amount of views", then that's a good reason for this article to be protected: articles aren't supposed to be pushing points of view. I hope this is a good explanation for not unprotecting this article for now. Acalamari 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note my above "silly locking" is about Bad Romance, not a WP:BLP article. The principle however is the same, these articles appear to be locked because of high edits. The reason of vandalism I don't see, yes there are vandal edits, but not a lot in terms of % and also good faith edits are labelled as vandalism(at least on Bad Romance article when I checked). I've asked for unlocking of Bad Romance and Lady Gaga discography. SunCreator (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the two articles you mention have the same problem this one does: there were serious BLP problems with this article, especially regarding...those rumours about Gaga that were flying a few months ago. That's a big reason this article got protected, and I support that. If the same type of content is going into those articles, then protection is clearly warranted. If not, then while I can't say wholesale to unprotect, I can at least say it's worth looking at. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Green Day's "Dookie" needs to be added to her influences (source: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglesrule8120 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Voice Type

I think since she is a singer there should be some information on her voice type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While that's a common request, it's also a hard item to get secondary verification of. That's why it's missing from many singers' articles, especially pop singers. However, if you've seen a review, biography, or similar (but not a fansite or wiki) that mentions her range, put the link here so we can assess the source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Autotune is how I'd describe it. (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga wearing a yellow leotard and an admiral's cap not at Mezzanine, San Francisco

original photo , original caption : "Lady GaGa's Fame Ball tour in Minneapolis, MN at the Fine Line Café. She was amazing, as well with her outfits. The White Tie Affair and Chester French opened."

Mezzanine, San Francisco description at Yelp

The Fine Line Music Cafe, Minneapolis, MN description at Yelp -=-Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga rumours revisited

any confirmation yet on that please? and add the controvercy section, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source had said anything, it would be added to the article. None have. Also, what controversies need mentioned? —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick Trivia: If you search for 'Hermaphrodite' on Google you get Lady Gaga as the top 5 hits. I say that the public should have an interest that she is linked to the term 'Hermaphrodite' on the Google search engine, this proves there are massive interest in this rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's on Google doesn't make it true. Esprix (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
After doing a little more research, it looks like it was a satire site that quoted her as confirming the rumors, and people took it as accurate; she has since outright denied being intersexed here: An interesting roundup of the rumor is here: Esprix (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because it's on a "celebrity truth" website doesn't make it true. There are quite a few photos where you can clearly see s/he has a small penis - or something in his/her pants [6] . As upsetting and disappointing as this might be, it surely deserves a mention in this article. ( (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC))
Opining on what might appear in said photos is original research and does not beyond in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The penis or whatever it is has been noticed and commented on by a great many commentators,
for example:
- "Lady Gaga has balls" (
- "LLady Gaga on solo-sex, drugs and that tiny penis issue" (msn)
- "Does Lady Gaga Really Have Man Parts? " (E online)
Also, as others have mentioned, th e Lady Gaga "penisgate" revelations have triggered the highest rated search hits in 2009. That in itself deserves a mention. The only thing stopping this are fans and apologists ( (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Stop beating a dead horse. It has been discussed thoroughly over the course of several months already (see archive #4). Consensus says no, it shouldn't be included in the article. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Photo That was the main photo being previously used. It is freely available for use.

Some editor removed it and replaced it with a different photo, which is currently the main photo. I believe the original image is of a much higher quality and I propose that it be put back. (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I see no rationale for changing the original image. If no one can provide a viable reason for the change, I'll change it back. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree, change it back! She looks atrocious in the current one. The original one is much better —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The main reason that the infobox images are used is to give a visual feel as to how the subject on whom the article is looks in the present tense. If a free image of the subject is available that is radically different from what they looked, say, about 8 months ago, then that is what should be used. Personal opinions of how atrocious is purely WP:FANCRUFT. This is not even a case of WP:MUG. i see no reason to contest the change. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The recently added photo is clearly technically inferior to the previous photo - it's out of focus, grainy, and of lower resolution. If there had been a huge change in her appearance, it might be acceptable to use this inferior photo, but I don't think there has been - she's wearing a different costume and has a different haircut, but her costumes and hairstyling change from performance to performance. The quality of the photos in Wikipedia is important, just like the quality of the text is, and the previous, superior, photo should be reinserted.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The photo is more than enough to describe the subject. Talking about technicality, the previous photo was also the same. More so it has red-eyes and was shadowy. There has indeed been a huge difference in the image of the artist in the real world scenario. I don't see any problem with it except may be a little raster graphics. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is a big time difference involved, say 10 years, you do not update just because it's a more current one, nor is there a policy or guideline that tells you to. This is just you looking to change it. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 12:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is almost no significant difference, rather than the fact that the photo it has been changed to is grainy and overall a bad image. The current image looks grainy and looks like a motion image.But Wikipedia runs under a system of consensus, so let's unofficially vote. Support = you support going back to the original image (as in, ). And being against is obviously keeping the current image. Support (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm not sure an informal vote is particularly useful; we clearly don't have consensus on either image, as we have one editor, User:Legolas2186, who objects to the older image, and a number of other editors who object to the newer image on either general aesthetic grounds, or slightly more technical grounds of image quality, fidelity, etc. I'm not entirely clear why User:Legolas2186 prefers the current image. If they could explain the problems they have with the old image in some more detail, that would be helpful; then other editors could decide if they agree, or if they wish to maintain their current objections to the newer image.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus has clearly been established here that the current photo is not suitable. The old one is much better. I'll change it myself now. WossOccuring (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears I can not, as I'm a new editor. {{editsemiprotected}} Consensus has clearly been established here that the older photo and caption (see here) is much more suitable. Please can somebody change it back. WossOccuring (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for changing it back! I think Legolas changed b/c he took the pic himself or some stupid reason like that b/c there is no other reason. Gaga changes her wigs all the time! The main photo shouldn't be changed every month! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous photo is better than this one. You can barely see her face due to the distance of the shoot. If the purpose of a photo is to easily identify the object, the previous is clearly more suitable. Sparks Fly 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


You people need to get your facts strait. It's the MONSTER ball not the Fame ball. Her new CD is the Fame MONSTER. If you guys don't know this your blind it's on the first page of her website. (Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathNote411 (talkcontribs) 15:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

MTV and Universal Music Group would beg to differ. The old tour was The Fame Ball Tour; the new one might be the Monster Ball, but that's not when the picture was taken. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
so you're using MTV as a reliable source. wise move, chap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Subject matter relating to footnote 54, Royal Variety Performance 2009

Lady Gaga did infact perform for Queen Elizabeth II, at the Royal Variety Performance, however it actually took place in Blackpool, England, not London as is stated. The date is also incorrect, the event was on December 7th 2009, not the 11th as reported.

Meyergetsnowt (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's name

Lady Gaga, isn't her "stage name", though. It's who she is. She's said various times that it's not an alter-ego or doppleganger, she uses it in everyday life. She says that the people she knows call her Gaga, for example she mentions it in her CNN's Talk Asia interview, which can be viewed here, I think this part of the article should be edited to something more appropriate, such as "Lady Gaga (born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, March 28, 1986), is an American singer, songwriter and performance artist", then this can be taken further, providing an explanation for how she acquired her name. (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legally, Lady Gaga is nothing more than a stage name. It doesn't make what she "considers" it to be; unless she releases documentation that her legal name has been changed, there's no reason to put misleading information in the lead sentence. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the key issue here is providing legal documentation. First of all, it's not clear to me that any legal documentation is necessary to prove a name change - common law provides that consistent use of an alternative name is all that is required to legally change the name, although some US states have additional requirements. Second, the MOS allows for the use of an alternative name first in article (see the e.g. of Boris Karloff), so we could use the IP's suggested wording even if Gaga hasn't legally changed her name. It seems to me it depends on whether or not she really does use Gaga all the time, or strictly as a stage name - I'm not sure we can take her word for it (the claim that Lady Gaga is not a persona might itself be part of her persona), but if, for instance, there are sources from journalists who have spent time with Gaga and people she knows, and report that "Lady Gaga" is indeed the name she uses in everyday life, then it might make sense to rephrase the opening to emphasize that name.VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Its really deluded to think of constructing the line based on something or a persona that the artist has crafted himself/herself. This doesnot change teh fact that her original name was SJAG and that LG is simply an adopted name. I agree with Bookkeeper that a legal documentation of her name change from SJAG to LG is necessary in this case and not a primary source from Gaga. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, VoluntarySlave is correct as far as the MOS (we've done the same for Tina Turner and Madonna) though as VoluntarySlave pointed out, they go by those names exclusively - and that is something that is well documented. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's discussion of this point right now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common name in article title versus name in lede. Based on that, unless a strong case can be made that Gaga is widely known, or performed signficantly, as anything other than Lady Gaga, I support rewriting the lead as the IP describes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lord Gaga?

Why is there nothing here about her relationship with her estranged husband, Lord Gaga? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because no reliable sources have been presented about him yet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Madonna's egocentrism

I feel like this comment by Madonna does not merit coverage. It seems very inaccurate, ignorant, and above all egocentric, of Madonna:

Madonna herself had once commented to Rolling Stone that she sees "[her]self in Lady Gaga." The entertainer explained, "[w]hen I saw her, she didn’t have a lot of money for her production. She’s got holes in her fishnets, and there’s mistakes everywhere [...] it was kind of a mess, but I can see that she has that it Factor. It’s nice to see that at a raw stage."[67]

I don't think Gaga was ever poor to the point that she had to settle for torn fishnets- if her fishnets had holes then it was most certainly part of the concept. Also about there being "mistakes everywhere" and the performance being a "mess" is also very ignorant because sources indicate Madonna first saw her in NYC during the Fame Ball Tour, which was mostly a critical success with no striking amateur mistakes, at least not to the point where it was all a big "mess". Nor was the tour a "raw stage" by any stretch of the imagination?! I get that Madonna's press input on Lady Gaga is notable, but seeing as Gaga's article is already overly comprehensive with a bunch of more notable things that haven't been mentioned, is this inaccurate/ignorant/egocentric, so called criticism, really necessary? Imperatore (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the first part of the Madonna quote is a little WP:UNDUE, as her critique of her show is not-notable. Hence that can be removed while keeping the "influence" part. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Birth City

On her wiki page it says that she was born in New York City, New York; but could someone please make it more specific by changing it to Manhattan, New York.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelminaslater717 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because the interview doesn't state she was born in Manhattan. (See Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 5#Yonkers can finally go for good.) If you've got a time marker for where in the interview she says it, I'll go take another listen, though. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

She did claim to be born in Lenox Hill in a song on SNL and she did grow up in Manhattan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddairish (talkcontribs) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Space Cowboy

Space Cowboy should be added to Associated Acts cause he toured with her and produced for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:32, 21 September 2009

You can't just say something as fact. I can say a lot of things as fact but without proof it's in the air. Of course, if you are in the "Space Cowboy" camp, I can see why trying to weasel your name onto her page might benefit you. lol. People think they are so coy? Fadedroots (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

External links

Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) deleted a number of external links from the article today, citing WP:ELNO:

I've restored the IMDB link: that's a standard inclusion for performers (and is not covered at WP:ELNO). I agree with the removal of the MySpace and Twitter links: even if official, they're still social networking sites.

That leaves her pages at Interscope and The latter is a social-type page, since is a music sharing/referral service. The former is her label's page on her. It includes news, conert dates, and other information which parallels her official page. I think that might qualify as a useful resource, but I'm borderline. Does anybody else agree that it, or any of the others, should be back in? Or that IMDB should be pulled? —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


She is "Lady GaGa" not "Gaga" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

removed per blp

Skip to 2 mins and 40 seconds, she herself says that she is not signed to Kon Live —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talkcontribs) 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

She says "I'm not signed to Konvict Muzik," which is Akon's other label. Evidently these interviewers didn't do their homework, but nor did you for attempting such a blatant edit. Imperatore (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Album X-Posed

Here is the source —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet the sidebar says Gaga only has two albums. I'm not sure this tells us anything conclusive yet, at least not on its own. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick google search revealed that it's a CD compilation of interviews, hence the title "x-posed". Seems like nothing more than grey market merchandise. Imperatore (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Also confirmed by Allmusic. --Dt128 let's talk 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Here too:
     claiming they ship it on feb. 2010 is pretty solid evidence.


I 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 (talkcontribs) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)