Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

35 million singles???

There is no reference for her having sold 35 million singles, there is only a reference for 10 million albums, so that should be removed until verfified! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colette89 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

age 24 (Lady Gaga) 92.81.220.69 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Some time zone bias creeping in here. In the US/European time zone, she still has a few hours to wait before becoming 24. No doubt it will be updated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Album

Gaga has mentioned working on her third studio album on the Kyle and Jackie O show. Can someone please add this small bit? 71.49.91.211 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

She did not attend the Juilliard audition

This I wrote on 8th March:

Here she says she got nervous before the audition: she did not attend the audition and instead went to acting class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMwPU6C1rvI&feature=player_embedded. In addition there is no full-time programme for 11-year-olds at Juilliard, it is a weekly Saturday class; so had she auditioned and got in she could have gone to her private school as well as Juilliard so it's misleading to say 'She was all set to join Juilliard but instead attended The Convent of the Sacred Heart' - one could easily attend both. Here's Juilliard's info for potential attendants below university age: http://www.juilliard.edu/precollege/general.html. For what it's worth, I think she's great, but it's misleading to mention Juilliard at all in the article.KarlBattery (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not receive a reply over the past 20 days, and no action was taken, so I will remove it from the article.KarlBattery (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gossip Girl cameo ...

Can you add she has made a cameo in Gossip Girl on the episode "Tthe Last day of the disco stick"? And she is working with Tarantino? AriandaGAGA (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

2010 Studio Album

It has announced by GaGa herself on her fansite, GaGaDailyhttp://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gaga-in-the-gagadaily-chat-box/and on MTV http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/lady-gaga/news/201324-lady-gaga-my-next-album-will-be-my-best-yet that she started her new album. Please acknowledge this in the article and don't delete it. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed that fansites are not considered reliable sources. Please see also WP:FANSITE which was cited in the initial revert by another user. Until this information is reported by third party neutral reliable sources, like information on twitter, it is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Morenooso (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the facts and introduce a new section. However be advised a Future tag could be added as this info is subject to change. --Morenooso (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Her appearance and announcements at Gagadaily and then Twitter are all over the entertainment news. She has apparently already written the core of the album and mentioned writing at least one song in Liverpool. It might be that one she referred to as the "Anthem for our Generation". DinDraithou (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to report what lady ga ga says here and there about an album promotion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He can use the MTV report as long as he sticks to the facts. --Morenooso (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to stick to at all, this is a biography of a person not a advert that she may or may not be releasing an album, it should not be included untill it is a real thing. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, and I will bring this to a board where can be resolved if he presents a good edit. --Morenooso (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In March 2010 Lady Ga ga announced that she was going to release another album before the end of the year and that it would be her best yet.[1]

I could live with that edit as a new section with a future tag placed on it. --Morenooso (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a valueless addition and a future tag and people would be attracted to it like a magnet adding rumour and gossip all the time, better not add it, you could say and add the same comment to any singers article on the wikipedia, they are likely trying to release an album this year and they all think it will be their best. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately future projects do exist in lots of Wikipedia articles. As long as the addition is reliably sourced and reflects what is said in the article without weasel words, almost anything can be added as per Jimbo Wales' express wish about Wikipedia. --Morenooso (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A great current example of this 24 with Kiefer Sutherland and Fox's announcement last night that this season is the last along with a future film tease. --Morenooso (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you know my position about this content, its valueless. The fact that similar rubbish has been added elsewhere or some vague link to Jimbo saying to fill up the wikipedia with such worthless, speculative, self promotional, fanzine content does not change my position at all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included either; but if it is, don't molest the article by mixing caps in the header like almost every user has done so far. And don't add it under discography as 2010, TBA or TBR, or whatever. That is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Nymf _hideliho! 23:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I only advocate a new section, properly sourced and that reflects just the facts. No additions as per Nymf. --Morenooso (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Morenoso has requested a third opinion, asking for a third opinion in this case is not correct there are already multiple editors involved. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I added it for a TO while just you and I were involved. Let's see what the TO says. --Morenooso (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinions have the value of another editors interpretation of the policy, it has no authoritative claim, it is better to simply wait and allow editors to comment here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Britney Spears new album, that is not included, she is releasing an album sometime this year and she says it is going to be her best yet. It was going to be released in June according to the rumors but she has set it back. No June Release for Britney Spears' New Album http://www.celebrity-mania.com/news/view/00011985.html Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. But, it does carry weight especially in disputed edits that could escalate. I thought we had a possible solution but everyone seems to get torqued off by one thing or another. BTW, you can see this wikilink, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit on Wikipedia's mainpage. It is a core tenet. --Morenooso (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just blocked by your edit from posting my initial reply. Bringing up Spears is a common failed argument known as WP:OTHERCRAP in AfD. --Morenooso (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if someone could find a reliable source, it could be cited in her article.--Morenooso (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If your asserting that any content of whatever dubious value can be inserted into a BLP I do not agree with you at all. As far as uther crap goes, that is fair enough, we as wikipedia editors filter all content cited or not for value to the reader and the long term value to the article, your claim would simply create a stuffed article full of any content found anywhere, this content by its very nature has no long term value, its good for a fanzine or a celebrity magazine but here in a biographical article about her life, do you not see how worthless it is? Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious content is never allowed. Please, let's stay on topic and civil. --Morenooso (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

http://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gaga-on-the-kyle-and-jackie-o-show/ - I know it's from the fansite, but it's a reliable interview. Yet, it confirms a third album but maybe not in 2010 (but I assume it will be out this year, but that's just me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.91.211 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It may be appropriate to have some mention of this new album. However, as fansites are indeed not particularly reliable sources, I suggest wording in the form that makes this clear, such as According to GaGa's website, she intends to release an album in 2010. Any more information must come from reliable third party sources and must not be speculative.—Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

.

MTV Logo Award Nomination and Television Debut (2008)

Pop music blog ArjanWrites.com nominated Lady Gaga for the MTV Logo NewNowNext ArjanWrites.com Brink of Fame Song Award in 2008 for "Just Dance." . Her nomination for this award let to her television debut in North America.

(Timadriaansz (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Queen of pop

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music Lady Gaga has named queen of pop ... let's add thissss AriandaGAGA (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA.

Origin of Name?

Anyone know where her name comes from? Gaga means soft in the head, senile etc. It's not exactly a concept to make yourself marketable so why select it? 118.208.121.198 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Music producer Rob Fusari, who helped her write some of her earlier songs, compared her vocal style to that of Freddie Mercury. Fusari helped create the moniker Gaga, after the Queen song "Radio Ga Ga". The singer was in the process of trying to come up with a stage name, when she received a text message from Fusari that read "Lady Gaga".

Every day, when Stef came to the studio, instead of saying hello, I would start singing 'Radio Ga Ga.' That was her entrance song. [Lady Gaga] was actually a glitch; I typed 'Radio Ga Ga' in a text and it did an autocorrect so somehow 'Radio' got changed to 'Lady'. She texted me back, "That's it." After that day, she was Lady Gaga. She’s like, "Don’t ever call me Stefani again." Rob Fusari

Those who can read, are clearly in adventage. --It's Flo (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Wonda (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro

Just as her other singles were, Alejandro should be included into her bio. --Arathun (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just Dance 30 second clip

Anyone else notice how loud/compressed that clip is? I had my speakers at about 60% as they usually are in default and that thing nearly blew them to pieces (brand new laptop too! yikes, we all know how weak those speakers are. I'm not savvy enough to replace the clip with a properly mastered version, so if there is anyone out there, it would be great! it would be a shame to remove it altogether as its a great addition to the page otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.46 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC) LaDY GAaga is also known verywell for for being unique in a weird way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.59.106 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Most influential people in the world

Time has recently published a poll of most influential people in the world and GaGa is number one ... can we add this? http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1972075_1976159_1976160,00.html 93.150.10.187 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Unless I'm misreading this, I don't think they've published the results of the poll yet - Gaga is the first person listed in the 200 candidates, but that doesn't mean she is at number one in the results. If she ends up being in the results, particularly if she is high up in the list, that would probably be worth mentioning; but let's hold off until the results are actually published.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a list of candidates, in which GaGa is at the top of the list but doesn't look to be first in terms of ratings. SpigotMap 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No ... Gaga is really the first because the votes she received ...the third number ... 173396 ... means her influence not the rankings because one people just can receive one vote ( 100 points) and his ranking just can be 100 ... olso time has said she is first 93.150.10.187 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Well then, what does the rating mean? SpigotMap 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the information is clear on that table. Time doesn't explain their methodology for how they rank the candidates. However, looking at the table, it's neither based on number of votes received nor average rating. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, candidates are ranked on the basis of how many additional copies of the magazine may be sold by putting that person's photo on the cover ?

86.25.123.143 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a parallel here with WP:BADCHARTS. Magazine polls like this usually mean very little.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LGBT discussion

{{Editsemiprotected}} Could the last paragraph of "Musical sytle and influences" (the part after the Rilke quotation) be split off into a separate section entitled "Gay icon" or similar? It really has terribly little to do with her musical style or musical influence. Thanks, 86.45.150.20 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "gay icon" would be very appropriate, but the title aside, I can't see any harm in the principle of the suggestion. Btw, this page has enough watchers that you don't really need the template! Anyone else have any input? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions suggested that it is too early in the artist's career to have that title yet in the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Another title is fine too. It just makes no sense to wedge the LGBT stuff in with musical style. 86.45.150.20 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with 86.45.150.20- that is a very long section and it could be useful to break it up a little. However, for an artist who has only really been famous for just under 2 years, this is a very long article. I'm not sure it's too long, but I wonder if all the material in there is strictly necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's what happens when somebody has a fanatical fan following. People have started trying to add reference to her under music over at avant-garde even, that's what led me here. It's incredible. Zazaban (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like a section called 'Public Image' would be good I think. Sparks Fly 21:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to title the subsection of the article "LGBT Advocacy?" The main content of this subsection has to do with Gaga's membership and popularity in gay subculture. The term advocacy carries connotations of political activism, and there's really nothing about politics here except for the two marches Gaga is listed as performing at. To say that Gaga is openly bisexual and that her art is both influenced by and influencing queer subcultural aesthetics is not the same as saying she is an activist or advocate. (For example, talking in non-political about your sexuality on a radioshow nor thanking gay fans for their support constitutes political advocacy, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.35.189 (talk • contribs) 2010-04-27T01:13:36

Lead sentence improvement

I was thinking about sharing my thoughts to this, when I saw in the edit history a user change the lead sentence from "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (born March 28, 1986), better known by the stage name 'Lady Gaga', is an American recording artist", to its current version. The user pointed out that the way it reads now, starting with her stage name and then her given name along with her DOB, should be changed, because Lady Gaga is not her legal name. Any comments on this? Tinton5 (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it Lady Gaga or Lady GaGa? MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The CamelCase version GaGa is often found in media coverage, but it is wrong. Only the naughty, lazy journalists do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 08:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaga herself writes it "Gaga" http://twitter.com/ladygaga Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 08:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In the beginning of her career "GaGa" was used, so I think it should at least be noted on the "Also known as" section Lucas RdS^(talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This would need a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This promotional video for her debut studio album, The Fame, made by herself shows her name as "Lady GaGa":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0R4qOsfSbs , as well Billboard news of her topping the Hot 100 chart with "Just Dance" and "Poker Face": http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-dances-to-the-top-of-hot-100-1003928479.story#/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-dances-to-the-top-of-hot-100-1003928479.story http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-draws-a-pair-of-no-1s-1003957967.story#/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-draws-a-pair-of-no-1s-1003957967.story Lucas RdS^(talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.154.89 (talk)

Although often spelt Gaga even by herself, on Interscope Records she is officially known as Lady GaGa, which is how it is also spelt on iTunes and thus on millions of iPods. Also, the name is derived from the song Radio GaGa which is spelt GaGa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Wonda (talk • contribs) 15:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the song is called "Radio Ga Ga," so either way you typecase her name it's still an inspired moniker, not a direct quotation of the title. Draeth Darkstar (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ALSO the badge she is wearing in the picture of her giving a speech at the Equality march near the bottom of the page says GaGa on it. HA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Wonda (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Her official website and Twitter profile use Gaga, so this is the current "official" spelling. Whether GaGa has ever been an officially endorsed spelling is harder to say, and there needs to be some more sourcing on this before stating it as a fact in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Could the next person that does a meet and greet PLEASE ask her?!? --Wiki Wonda (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I actually had a meet and greet with her, she says she thinks the fight over her name is funny and she prefers it spelled "Gaga" rather than "GaGa" because the latter looks weird. Those were her exact words 74.109.50.28 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Too many pictures on 2008-onwards section?

Well, I really think so. IMO, they are cluttering the section, three images are really not needed. It would be great if we discuss to eliminate at least one. I'm thinking maybe the New Kids on the Block tour one, because we can't see nothing in that picture. :-P Sparks Fly 02:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't see ANYTHING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.120.205 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New Album title

Control?? Reference for this? 80.6.13.106 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Add in new album :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.155.12 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know there is a new album coming out but the title has not been announced yet. We need confirmation to put in the title. --Alextwa (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.253.255.142, 24 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} i think her birth date should be february 234

71.253.255.142 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Her birthday is in March. KIIS-FM radio stated this. Rihanna Knowles 06:23, April 25, 2010

"Reception" Section

Why is that there? No other artist has a 'Reception' category of other people's commentary. I think it degrades her. It seems like a section composed of insults.

Agree. What other artists have to say about her aren't really needed here. Professional critics in turn could be worth, in its respective places. Sparks Fly 01:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should go. The artists attacking Gaga's work are not particularly significant/reliable, while the likes of Elton John and Madonna have nothing but praise for her. The "feud" with Christina belongs elsewhere in the article. DinDraithou (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MIA and Grace Jones aren't significant? I think all viewpoints about Gaga should be expressed, both positive and negative, to give an all-encompassing perspective of her work.--The lorax (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No they are not. MIA and Grace Jones happen to be her co-worker in the same field and hence their criticism or even MAdonna and Elton John's praise is just not WP:NPOV. Please see major articles like Michael Jackson and Madonna where only scholarly analysis of her work is included. This section should go. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Most influential artist in the world

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1984685,00.html lady gaga is the most influential artist in the world! AriandaGAGA (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ArandaGAGA

Just flat no at the WP:RECENTISM of this article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ok ... but are you going to add this? AriandaGAGA (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ArandaGAGA

Flat no. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

now all the world knows this? Would you like to add this? AriandaGAGA (talk)

Another red flag here is WP:PEACOCK. "Influential" is overused and almost impossible to prove reliably. Also, magazine polls - even in a well known magazine like TIME - are not really a WP:RS because they can say anything they want to say. No-one is disputing that Lady Gaga is hugely successful at the moment, but this poll is not really suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of singer's page (like m.i.a. and Beyoncè)that reported this notice ... so I guess you would add that ... maybe you can say .. according to TIME GgaGa has been listed as the most influential artist of 2010 AriandaGAGA (talk)

Ian's asking the right question: is the Time 100 poll of most influential artists a significant enough award to mention in the article? If so, it would be worded along the lines of "Time magazine's Time 100 poll for 2010 ranked Gaga as the most influential artist of the year." —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's significant ... it's very very significant AriandaGAGA (talk)

Perhaps more to the point, Time 100 is notable enough to have its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

She is listed at time 100 let's add thisss ! [User:AriandaGAGA|AriandaGAGA]] (talk)

How is this notable? She's listed because of fan votes, not because anybody notable has deemed her to be influential. –Chase (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source to prove this is fan-voted. Look at the top. Voting has expired but it clearly says it was a vote. –Chase (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That says it clearly that it is fan voted. Hence AriandaGAGA you must be clear now as to why we cannot add this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, with all due respect to your numerous contributions to the Lady Gaga article, I have to disagree. Yes, the source you provided showed that Gaga received more than 500,000 votes, but that still places her at 5th most voted person. However, another source (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1972075,00.html) clearly shows that Gaga ranks at #1 overall. This proves that fans' votes do not (at least maybe fully) account for how the TIME editors rank the annual 100 most influential people. ZephyrWind (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just the list of candidates, where she happens to be listed first. (I think.) If you follow the link at the bottom of the list you'll find she came in 5th, with an average rating of 92 and 567,166 votes. DinDraithou (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

These polls compare apples and oranges. Will future historians really think that Lady Gaga was more influential in 2009 than Barack Obama or the Nobel Prize winner for physics? Great entertainer yes, but fan voted polls usually suffer from WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That really depends. The Beatles and David Bowie are voted among the 100 Greatest Britons of all time. James Clerk Maxwell may be ranked by his fellow physicists as the 3rd greatest of all time, after only Einstein and Newton, but his countrymen find him less important (#91) than the Irishman Bono (#86). DinDraithou (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The 100 Greatest Britons poll in 2002 ran into controversy.Great Britons poll is 'bonkers and rigged' There were allegations of multiple votes being cast for Isambard Kingdom Brunel, among other irregularities. Polls like these always need to be taken with a pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ianmacm, just a reply to your comment; from where I come from (South-East Asia), indeed Gaga is more influential than Oprah, Obama or even the "Nobel Prize winner for physics". She appears on more talk shows, newspapers, magazines, adverts, info-mercials and flyers than the others combined. Her songs are heard everywhere (and I really mean everywhere). Yup, just penny for thought haha ZephyrWind (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I do not understand how is this passing WP:RECENTISM? You are asking to add an information, which basically can change tomorrow itself. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my part of the world (the UK) voters decided that Michael Crawford and David Beckham were more influential than Henry VIII and Charles Dickens. This is why fan voted polls are always good for a laugh. No arguments about Lady Gaga's success though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, I'm not asking to add anything, I'm just offering another point of view; it's precisely because of recentism that TIME holds the poll every year since 2003 so as to gauge the changes in influence annually. ZephyrWind (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mention of new album

OK, its kinda obvious that Gaga is going to release a new album soon. Cant we at least put a mention of it in the discography, or allow the access to the article Third Lady Gaga Album or something http://galaxieblog.com.my/blog/permalink.asp?id=3223? PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can produce a reliable source stating a new album is coming then perhaps. Otherwise no, the blog you posted is entirely unacceptable. SpigotWho? 19:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think, at this point, that a sentence or two on the new album is in order, but it is entirely premature to list it in the discography or create an article about it, especially without a firm title or release date. Both WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER provide guidance to this effect. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Without a title, a third album name cannot be added. However, the two lines present regarding her songwriting for the third album is more than enough at present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

good article

Congrats on this article - brief, to the point and no bowing to salacious rumour-mongering. Good for you. Spanglej (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

Without settting off any edit wars, does anyone prefer Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless-re.jpg as the infobox image? In any case, this image is not currently used in the article, which is a pity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

i was the one who replaced that one with the current image as it is much more superior in quality, much more, brighter, sharper and teh artist's face is clearly visible, unlike File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless-re.jpg, where, even the Technical assistants couldnot increase the sharpness and work on it further. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

correct her name?

I am guilty, too. I just called her Gaga. This is wrong. That would be like calling The Beatles, Beatles. Or Fleetwood Mac, Mac. Or Black Eyed Peas, Peas.

Removed the sexual orientation footnote... What does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignrich664 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct name would be either Lady Gaga or Germanotta. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Germanotta shouldn't be used per WP:COMMONNAME. Gaga is appropriate since it could plausibly be considered to be her pseudonymous surname (see WP:SURNAME). –Chase (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know. If she prefers to be called Gaga, this might be encyclopedia. I know it is rude to walk up to the Queen and start talking and addressing her as "Queen". The Queen addresses you, not vice versa. One also does not call her "Queen" or "Queenie". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We've been down this road before, see Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 6#Calling her "Gaga" against WP:MOS?. Consensus there looks like "Gaga" is acceptable as a second reference. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaga is how she prefers to be addressed in person. She has stated so in several TV interviews, which can be found at YouTube. (The early ones are especially fun because she used to be a goofy chatterbox before eventually realizing (or being advised) that she needed to be distant.) DinDraithou (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's not who she is. Not really. Lady Gaga should be seen more as a stage-name and persona. Like 'Ziggy Stardust' for David Bowie. I think there should be a seperate page or something. Because 'Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta' and 'Lady Gaga (persona)' are not the same person. I don't know Wikipedia's standard for 'personas'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.61.151 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's beside the point, and she is not Lady Gaga the way Bowie 'was' Ziggy Stardust. She releases albums as Lady Gaga, she is announced as Lady Gaga, and that's what anyone would look for if they wanted to find information on her. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Record sales?

Im a massive Lady Gaga fan, but the record sales quoted on this article seem to be poorly sourced, especially because the source is just a news article where the figures are mentioned in passing. Im just wondering if the sales figures could be better sourced and more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul294gorm (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Ga Ga as stated on her debut album, 'The Fame' credits David Bowie, Prince and Madonna as well as Fashion. Prince has been one stated as one of the influencers, not Michael Jackson. (Although MJ will be one of the greatest artists of all time!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.186.145 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumor

There is a rumor going around that she is a man. Should this be added or not?My name Borat (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and rumours cannot be included; if they are, then policy states it is to be removed immediately without discussion. What she has said about such rumours, or about her identity, can be included. Mish (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a controversy over Gaga's gender, however Gaga was thought to be a hermaphrodite, not a man. I really don't know what pronouns to use so I won't use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerBarJude (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a rumour about this, and she denied that she is intersex, and the denial in an interview is already in the article. So, that answers the question, and there is no need for further discussion. Mish (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

According to stylist.com (http://www.stylelist.com/2010/05/12/would-you-go-to-work-bare-faced-get-ready-for-makeup-free-monda/?icid=main%7Caim%7Cdl1%7Clink1%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.stylelist.com%2F2010%2F05%2F12%2Fwould-you-go-to-work-bare-faced-get-ready-for-makeup-free-monda%2F), Lady Gaga is a man who normally dresses in "drag". This may not be evidence that she is a man, but the claim itself in a large online publication seems notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.126.5 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go on asking the same things over and over again. Nothing else, other than what is present about the intersex matters, will be added so cut the crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Amir.manraj, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} According to Pandora.com, Lady Gaga is a native of Yonkers, not Manhattan. Amir.manraj (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: See Lady Gaga: Behind the Fame, pp. 220–221: "And finally, Leno ventured onto the subject of the wild speculation that swirled around her. What was the worst rumor that she had heard about herself? he asked, and there were no prizes for guessing what he was referring to. 'That I'm from Yonkers,' she countered, keeping an admirably straight face. 'I love the Bronx, but I'm from Manhattan.'" –Chase (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Third album tracks

Can anyone tell me where did the tracks of her third album from RedOne production discography article come from? 222.79.156.151 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga; One of the biggest selling acts Since it has beeen said on her wiki article that Gaga has sold more than 50 million records, shouldn't she be part of the list of best selling artists of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachaeladeathedreamer (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It says 15 million records, not 50. That's just simply absurd. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"I'm left-handed!"

Referring to her "expressive, free spirit", Gaga told Elle magazine "I'm left-handed!"

How is this relevant to her development as a singer? Can we stick to tangible biographical details?--The lorax (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a reliably sourced quote from Lady Gaga, there is no great problem with having it in the article. There are various theories about whether left handed people are likely to be good at art, science and sport, but they are beyond the scope of this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this would fit better under Public Image rather than the Early Life section. I mean, lots of people are left handed but it doesn't tell the reader how she got from point A to point B.--The lorax (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It happens to be one of the most valuable pieces of information in the article, for those readers with some background in music and art... and science. There are differences in brain structure and processing. Left-handedness does not produce a superior artist and there is not meant to be any implication of that, but it can produce a somewhat different "type". No doubt Gaga's professional teachers made her aware of this. DinDraithou (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Produce" is the wrong word, but it can contribute to differences, if one already has abilities. And most of the great musicians in history have been right-handed anyway. Mozart shows left hand dominance in his compositions for piano but for all we know he may just have favoured the sound.

Left-handedness is much more common among successful politicians and the like, and is suggested to be related to enhanced expressiveness or communication ability. Gaga is primarily a singer-songwriter and "performance artist", whatever she means by it. She'd make as great a politician. When she's not off (or pissed off) she's great in recorded interviews, more of which we should link to from the article. There are like dozens at YouTube. DinDraithou (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady gagas next album

You should talk about Lady Gagas next album. For example....

'Lady Gaga is recording songs for her next album on her tour bus and according to Akon, some of the material is sounding "crazy". Lady GaGa feels much more connected to God and her next album will convey that according to a recent interview that the "fame monster" gave to London's The Times.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne126 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Navbox

I think it wouldn't hurt to spin off the navbox by creating a singles navbox. Even though the current navbox works well given the amount of content contained therein, it doesn't index the singles by album, so something should be done to address this drawback. Imperatore (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

She's just two albums old. Its highly unnecessary. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a singles by album breakdown in the main navbox? I just feel like it will add a lot of value if this distinguishability could be made. Nevertheless it will probably end up splitting at the end of the year once there's a third album. Imperatore (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That maybe possible, then again, once the third album comes, it will be splitted anyways. So its better we wait for the album or the single to be announced, whence we can split it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Disco Heaven Album

Lady GaGa had an album with about 15 songs on it called Disco Heaven. I've downloaded and listened to it many times, but there's not a single mention of it on this page. Probably should be incorporated into this page as it's a full body of work if this goes to GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauceyboy (talk • contribs) 09:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Disco Heaven is firstly one of The Fame bonus tracks (revised edition). The album you're referring to was fan made. DinDraithou (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, this 'album' appears to trace back to this Spanish blog site called "Gabria Music" [2]. They seem to make clever bootlegs of popular recording artists by creating very convincing covers (both front and back) and by focusing only on "unreleased" / B-Side tracks. Their stuff quickly diffuses via filesharing and other sites, misleading the public. I must admit that back in early 2009 when I discovered Disco Heaven on a forum, I was almost duped along with the forum members who said this was a Spanish/European exclusive release. Using google translation, they give the following disclaimer: "The albums you find on this blog are not official. They are creations of unreleased material. You can buy the original material and support the artists." Indeed their stuff is very believable because the focus is generally on B-sides and the covers are meticulously constructed. They also seem to use less popular/prominent images of artists to go along with the impression of unreleased recordings. Imperatore (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts?

One editor removed all of the associated acts apart from Space Cowboy, their reason was "Just because an artist did a collaboration on one song does not make them "Associated Acts". Removed most of them." - I reverted it until a firm decision is made. So..? RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts. I agree with the removal of said acts. — ξ^xplicit 23:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Remove them. Here's the documentation for {{Infobox musical artist}} and the Associated acts field, with emphasis added:

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
• Groups that are merely similar

Based on that, it's pretty clear that the one-time collaborations should not be included in the associated acts field. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• • It is because of this that I removed all but Space Cowboy. Lady Gaga toured and collaborated with Space Cowboy on multiple occasions. It could also be argued RedOne could be considered an "Associated Act"... he has basically formed Lady Gaga's musical style and produced 90% of her biggest hits. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove all but Beyonce (More than one collaboration), Space Cowboy, also I'd add RedOne. Also who ever she has toured with the most, would be a good addition. (It's better that we reach a decision here now though, as everyone will just end up in an edit wars, and the page is up for GA..)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe no one other than Space Cowboy and Lady Starlight passes as associated acts, not even Akon, Beyonce or RedOne. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.149.134.197, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Gaga dated former TNA Wrestling senior referee Rudy Charles from mid 2005 to late 2007.

70.149.134.197 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/lady-gaga-2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.134.197 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? That site's disclaimer text doesn't inspire confidence: "WhosDatedWho.com does not make any warranties nor representations as to its accuracy or reliability." —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

French Canadian Ancestry

Lady Gaga's mother is of French Canadian descent belonged to her great-great-great-great-grandfather Jacob Bissett who was emigrated from Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. But, User:Legolas2186 has just removed my edit including the reference. Here's the reference link of Jacob Bissett. Thank you! 210.14.44.33 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the section above: Talk:Lady_Gaga#Gaga's roots... and work with Nick Knight, for an expansive discussion, admittedly mostly me going on and on because I love this sort of thing and happen to have some applicable expertise. It is of course possible that this descent is accurate, but the change in spelling from Bessett(e) to Bissett is unexplained. This is not a small problem. Were there no such change it might be acceptable without further references. But the spelling as we have it appears to be Scottish or Scotch-Irish, and Cynthia's family has been in West Virginia, Scotch-Irish territory, for over a century, according to this very source.

And... our little miss herself keeps saying her mother is as Italian as her father. DinDraithou (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And 210.14.44.33 just confessed to block evasion:GPI-MediaWiki Union is blocked as a sock of AlyciaBellamyMediaInc, and it's GPI-MediaWiki Union's edit that 210.14.44.33 is referring to.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening line.

The opening line to the article is somewhat deceptive. It makes it sound like Stefani Germanotta has legally changed her name to Lady Gaga.

Lady Gaga (born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta; March 28, 1986) is an American recording artist.

The line could better be phrased:

Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (born March 28, 1986), better known by her stage name Lady Gaga, is an American recording artist.

The article would still reference her as Gaga throughout the rest of it.

For comparison, the Katy Perry wiki uses this latter format, whereas the Bob Dylan and Miley Cyrus wiki, where both have legally changed their names, uses the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linerqi (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See preivous consensus on this in the archives. This line is what was decided upon. Lady Gaga is not just a stage name anymore, but the name she has started to use in real life. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rilke Tatoo

Do you think it's better to show the original German quote by Rilke (I think she has the German one tatooed on her arm), the English translation, or the both of them in the article? --It's Flo (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

New pictures uploaded

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

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1209.jpg

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1251.jpg

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1207.jpg

File:Ladygaga b8dn415 1278.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Life

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

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

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

Her profile picture... and shark-jumping

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

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

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