Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 17

Personal Life

In early February, at her visit at Brentwood School in LA, Gaga confessed that she suffered from Bulimia Nervosa, in her teens. She stated that "I used to throw up all the time in high school. So I'm not that confident. And maybe it's easier for me to talk about it now because I don't do it anymore." [237]Gaga later stated as a teen she wanted to be a skinny little Ballerina,and always questioned her father every dinner on why they always ate pasta and meatballs. Gaga stopped purging due to fear of damaging her vocal chords. "The acid on your vocal chords -- it's very bad. But for those of you who don't sing, you maybe don't have that excuse until it's too late. It's very dangerous," [238]she said. Gaga also spoke about societies pressures of being thin on young girls especially in the fashion industry. "Every video I'm in, every magazine cover, they stretch you; they make you perfect It's not real life... The dieting wars have got to stop."[239] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggybooboo (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Scheiße Download Date July 30th 2012 & US Radio Request Week July 9th 2012

Fans started a download date for the song since they have not had a video and new remixes since marry the night and it is a fan favourie an could help with the history of the song if this was added on to her main page i Think her main page should appear like this.

Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (/ˈstɛfəniː dʒʌrməˈnɑːtə/ STE-fə-nee jurr-mə-NAH-tə; born March 28, 1986), known by her stage name Lady Gaga, is an American singer and songwriter. Born and raised in New York City, she primarily studied at the Convent of the Sacred Heart and briefly attended New York University's Tisch School of the Arts before withdrawing to focus on her musical career. She began performing in the rock music scene of Manhattan's Lower East Side, and was signed with Streamline Records by the end of 2007. During her employment as a songwriter for the record company, her vocal abilities captured the attention of recording artist Akon, who signed her to his label Kon Live Distribution.

Lady Gaga came to prominence as a recording artist following the release of her debut album The Fame (2008), which was a critical and commercial success that topped charts around the world and included the international number-one singles "Just Dance" and "Poker Face". After embarking on the The Fame Ball Tour, she followed the album with The Fame Monster (2009), which spawned the worldwide hit singles "Bad Romance", "Telephone" and "Alejandro". The Fame Monster's success allowed her to embark on the eighteen-month long Monster Ball Tour, which later became one of the highest-grossing concert tours of all time. Her most recent album Born This Way (2011) topped the charts of most major markets and generated more international chart-topping singles, including "Born This Way", "Judas" and "The Edge of Glory". Besides her musical career, she involves herself with humanitarian causes and LGBT activism.

Influenced by David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Madonna and Queen, Lady Gaga is recognized for her flamboyant, diverse and outré contributions to the music industry through her fashion, performances and music videos. She has sold an estimated 23 million albums and 64 million singles worldwide, making her one of the best-selling music artists of all time and her singles are some of the best selling worldwide.[1] Her achievements include five Grammy Awards and 13 MTV Video Music Awards. Lady Gaga has consecutively appeared on Billboard magazine's Artists of the Year (scoring the definitive title in 2010), ranked fourth in VH1's list of 100 Greatest Women in Music, is regularly placed on lists composed by Forbes magazine and was named one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine.[2][3] In 2012, Gaga was ranked at number four on Billboard's list of top moneymakers of 2011, grossing more than $25 million.[4] Lady Gaga's Fnas Have Started a Facebook Campaign To Make The Song The 6th Single From Born This Way And Set a Download Day For July 30th 2012 To Get Lady Gaga's Attention So She Would Release It Has a Single And Put Out a Video And Some Remixes. Also a Radio Request Week Is Set For July 9th Fans Are Set To Request The Song On Radio In The US & Around The World With a Message Telling Other Little Monsters About The Download Day On July 30th 2012.

Adding text so that this section is archived by the bot. 202.54.176.14 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's film appearance

Can someone please add the poster of her playing the role 'La Chameleon' in the new movie? I don't know how. Also, we should make this a small section (meaning a 2-4 line paragraph) on its own when we get more info. Thanks! Zeus Gold Asterri, July 26 2012 2:37pm

Adding text so that this section is archived by the bot. 202.54.176.14 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

I thought she was Jewish?

Adding text so that this section is archived by the bot. 202.54.176.14 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Artistry

In her Artistry section it says that she was named queen of pop by Rolling Stone. I think that it should be noted that the mentioned poll only refers to people between the years of 2009 and mid-2011

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/introducing-the-queen-of-pop-20110629

As the very next week, Madonna was named the Queen of Pop by Rolling Stone in a landslide victory because of the uproar behind the previous Queen of Pop poll

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-queen-of-pop-20110706

(72.219.42.115 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

Lady Gaga being referred to as the Queen of Pop was not a poll, it's a numerical analysis by RS regarding records sales, social media presence and awards in the years from 2009-2011 thus they made her the "new Queen of Pop", the one with Madonna is a poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.133.243 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

En-dash needed

Can someone change the section title of the recent most biography timeline from 2012-present: Artpop to 2012–present: Artpop with the en-dash embedded? Thanks 202.54.176.14 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Acalamari 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Леди Гага & Ledi Gaga. Since you had some involvement with the Lady Gaga redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Forbes list

As of August 2012 Lady Gaga is according to "Forbes-100 most powerful women" the most powerful musician in the world and the youngest women on the list. She was ranked at number 14 as the most powerful women in the world!!Gagaless (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I'd like to change the picture to newer one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotukas11 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Artpop is 2013...?

Isn't Artpop better suited to be set in 2013? I mean, yes, she is writing the album, but if it's not going to be released until 2013, she certainly won't be touring for it before then. DanielDPeterson + talk 23:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga naked recorded a new album

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: New album "Artpop" Lady Gaga's filmed in a studio totally naked, writes Rijeka Croatian daily in Italian, La Voce del Popolo. "Sing naked improving voice, singing naked better express" explained Lady Gaga. Campaign to promote "Artpop" began.78.2.75.158 (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New Name ??

Radio Queen v. Gaga. Yes ore no?!

Jack and Jay85.116.204.124 (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you've got a reliable source, the answer is no, whatever exactly the question is. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FAME fragrance

The release of "FAME" along with her collaboration with Steven Klein and Ridley Scott (producer) on the trailer should be added to the page, surely? --90.195.223.242 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also just been named the second fastest selling fragrance ever, following Coco Chanel, after selling 6 million bottles in 1 week. --90.195.223.189 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update To Political Activism/Personal Life

I can't edit the page but I would like to suggest an alteration to the Lady Gaga wikipedia entry. Under Political Activism, I think it should be mentioned that Lady Gaga supports the legalization of marijuana in the US and plans to discuss it with Barack Obama. She also smoked marijuana on stage in Amsterdam. Here's a link as a source: http://www.celebeat.com/articles/10570/20120920/lada-gaga-smokes-pot-stage-amsterdam-video.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankss9 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct the pronunciation

It should be /ˈstɛfəni/ and /dʒɜːr/. 109.245.60.87 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Pronuciation Request

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done I agree. Please provide a reliable source. Closed edit request. Vacation9 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

New profile picture

File:Lady Gaga BTW Ball Antwerp 02.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.227.92 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the profile picture to a newer one, since it's good to use the freshest picture there, and while the previous one was taken in 2010, this one was shot in September 2012. Also, the singer's face can be seen clearly thus it's a good portray of her to be used in the main information box. Anyone disagreeing, please share your opinion here, instead of reverting the edit with no explanation other than being hung on the previously used photo. --Sricsi (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I say leave the 2010 photo as is. Tribal44 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

This is not reasoning. If you want to keep it, let me know why is it better than a new one. --Sricsi (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should change it to the 2012 one, because it is newer, and has a better quality. Kirtap92 (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter to be determined by consensus. Please don't change the image until consensus is reached. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And what's your opinion, Cresix? There won't be a consensus soon if nobody shares an opinion. --Sricsi (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, nor is one required on Wikipedia. I'm simply asking for the add-revert process to stop until consensus is reached. Cresix (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Unreleased Songs

What about songs of Lady Gaga which wasn't released on official singles? Galzigler (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

They are, most like, not notable enough to have their own articles. --I dream of horses (T) @ 20:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about articles for these songs. I meant it should be mentioned in the article. Galzigler (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of debatable, many, if not all, other artists have unreleased songs that are not worth mentioning because... Well, it's kind of obvious. —Gheiratina ^{(Touch~^)} 01:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

absurd state

"She criticized the intolerant state of gay rights in many European countries and..." That loaded statement has got lots of implications attached to it. As European countries aren't intolerant towards homosexuals at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.150.52.183 (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are. The sentence says "many European countries", not all of them. She mentioned countries with reason, e.g. Hungary, I live there, and it's really an intolerant country. --Sricsi (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fan page or encyclopedia?

Far too much gushing by fans here. Specifically awards and sales stats. Only those which she ranks #1 should be included as anything less is of questionalble notability. Additionally claims and statements made by gaga on topics that she is not considered a subject matter expert should also be excluded (eg. Status of gay rights in europe). Just because fans hang on her every word does not mean anyone else in the world does. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

to elaborate, she is only listed on wikipedias "top selling artists of all time" which is against wiki policy (a reliable 3rd party must ecplicidly state she is one pf the top selling artists of all time). As well she olny won billboards artist of the year in 2010. Being mentioned in the artist of the year article in other years which she did not win is not notable. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The awards that we provide on her page meet Notability because they are major awards that she recieved a nomination for, and are sourced well. Her comments on gay rights are included because they are a large part of who she is, just as comments you make can be a large part of who you are. Again, these are well sourced and there is no reason to remove them. In response to your elaboration, she is stated there based on the sales of artists on Wikipedia. WP:CALC states that routine calculations are not subject to sourcing requirements. Someone compiling the sourced sales data from different articles and determining which are more than others is a routine calculation. Your last comment, "Only won BB in 2010, other years not notable": A nomination for a major award is enough to establish notability for that particular section on a work. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. A simple calc would be stating what her sales ate. To add the subjective characterization that her count make her one of the best selling artists is synth. And honestly, that list is a compilation of competeing fans who wish to see their fav artists labled as such. And to be consistant with pther pages, if she receives a nomination it should be mentioned. Not just that she was included in BB's artists of the "consecutively" (which isnt proper english). Lastly, i agree, staements I make are a large part of who I am. But that doesnt make them (or me) notable. Just because gaga is very notable does not make every word out of her mouth notable. Unless those particular comments received wide spread coverage in reliable sources they are an issue of undue weight. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The process of determining if x is greater than y is not synth as you say. 1 is always less than 2, three million always greater than two million, etc. The list is one of many ways of organizing music artists. Her viewpoints on controversial topics are notable, and have recieved very large reliable source coverage. I will take a look at the BB's artists issue in a minute. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

i agree 1 is less than 2 but who was it that decided what number constitutes "one of the best selling"? 108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Best selling = outselling others (I cannot remember what the limit is on the page, but there is a limit). If the artist outsells all but x of artists then they go on the list, as they are above the limit. Lets pretend the limit is 50 artists. Anyone who outsells at least #ofartists - 49 would go on that list as #50, #of artists - 48 as number 49, etc. Its a WP:CALC calculation, as its just simple subtracting and greater/less than. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

thats my point: wikipedians came up with that qualifying metric. Ypu can not cite such a title that has only been defined as such by wikipedia. You must have a reliable source that makes such a claim or defines such a qualification. Otherwise the best that you could do would be to say " as defined by wikedias best selling artist list, gaga is on eof the best selling artists" you have to atribute the claim to the source (which, cant be wikipedia in reality, as its specifically against policy). 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

All Wikipedians defined was the cutoff for the list. My math above would be similar (just change the number subtracted) for any number. And no reliable source is going to tell Wikipedia how to format its list. Wikipedia at some point came to a consensus on the number of artists to include in that category, and thats how it stands. I'm sorry if you disagree. It seems to me that you just don't like Gaga and want to discredit anything that makes her look good. My suggestion to you is to find some scandalous thing she's done, provide excellent sourcing, and add it in. Otherwise, don't just find willy-nilly reasoning to take stuff out just because it makes her look good. If it's true, include it. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

this is why i dont go on wikipedia much anymore. One of the founding principles of wikipedia was "its not whats trues its what can be referenced by reliable sources". I have no beef or distain towards gaga. I'm much too old to care about modern pop music. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan pagw, gossip site or anything else. If i didnt assume good faith, it would appear that rather you are a fan as most of ypur responses arent really rooted in solid understanding of wiki policies. Ie. what you say makes you who you are....what is that babble supposed to mean? Wikipediais about curating facts from reliable sources in an encyclopedic fashion. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since you've resorted to talking about me instead of the article, I'll give you this: Show me the calculations you do that make her not one of the best selling artists. If you can show me that, then okay, I'll change it. But if not, please give it up. It is a simple is x greater than enough y's problem. Its WP:CALC. When I say true, I mean true with references. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. If you can give me quotes of how it's a fan page, I will think about them and change ones that are. If you can give me quotes from the page of how it's gossip (which is unsourced), then I'll remove it. Otherwise, please stick to the article in this dispute, or I will be tempted to entertain it no more. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

you're missing the point. who defined the qualification for "Best Selling Artists of all time"? Answer: wikipedians. As such, it cannot be a title or claim made in any other wiki articles as wiki can not reference itself or be a source for itself. the only way the article can state that gaga is one of the best selling artists of all time is if a thrid party (outside of wikipedia) makes that statement. You dont seem to get that wikipedia cant just make up titles and definitions (even if through concensus of editors) and then use those as claims in other articles. That is what is synth. If I create a page that is titled "list of the worlds largest cities" and then agree with other editors that the qualification for inclusion is only 100 resident I cant then run around wikipedia changing the articles of various small towns who havew more than 100 residents to claim they are "one of the largest cities in the world". you see my point? Someone external (and reliable) has to make these determinations. It cant be a product of wikipedia editors. 96.49.237.199 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was tring to avoid the statement (to aleviate flaming and tantrums from fans) but in reality, gaga is not one of the best selling artists of all time. Even on the page wikipedia has defined she only ranks 97th. Hardly notable. 96.49.237.199 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The point I'm making is that Best Selling is common knowledge. Best selling means they sell more than other people. Everyone in the world understands that. Wikipedia did not come up with that qualification, the laws of mathematics did. And Wikipedia can do whatever it wants through consensus of editors, because that is the founding principle of Wikipedia (WP:Consensus). No you can't do that example you give. We didn't determine the qualification for inclusion. We said every artist in the top x number of artists is included. There is no hard requirement. If there were only 5 artists left in the world, then by golly under our definition all of them would be top selling, because they are in the top x number of artists. There is not a hard "100 residents" requirement for an artist to be on the list. Your point is valid, but it isn't what is going on with the best selling artists on Wikipedia. If we define the cutoff for best selling as the top 100 artists then she qualifies as being 97th to have that under her page. And WP:notability only applies to subjects of articles, not to the actual content therein. You cannot claim that something within an article should be deleted as non-notable, only an article as a whole. And Lady Gaga is very notable. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I gove up. You admit wikipedia came up with the definition (there is no reliable source elsewhere defining this) and then say its fine because of consensus. It's not. But ultimately this is what wiki has become: fans, detractors, coi's rounding up enough supporters to form "consensus" to get their way and insert theyre own views. I feels like (and could be) i'm arguing with an irrational child that just refuses to accept reality and instead substitues their own. I'll just avoid wikipedia for another 3-4 years and try again later. Its been fun! 108.172.114.141 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the IP's opinion really makes sense. No third-party reliable sources claimed Gaga asa one of the best-selling artists of all time. BBC News only stated ...sold approximately 23 million albums and 64 million singles worldwide. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

and just so your clear, here is a refresher on "founding principals" specificaly clause 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

No original research – Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

You can only form consensus on facts fromreliable sources (you dont have a source saying gaga is a best selling artist of all time do you?)

From the same page:

In its earliest form, the policy singled out edits for exclusion that: Introduce a theory or method of solution;

What you ahve on the wiki page of best selling artists is a method of solution. Its wrong and i think you probably know it but your appreciation for gaga is preventing you from aknowledging it. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Listen to me please. All Wikipedia came up with was the cutoff of how many artists we define as best selling. We didn't do original research on how many albums she sold (you provide the source for that above) and we do not make any claims outside the realm of simple math. Anyone can go around and find the sources saying "(artist) has sold (number) of albums", then decide which ones are the most, and list them. Then take the top x number of artists, and say they are the best selling of all time. You are not refuting my point in your arguments. If you fail to refute my point in your next post, I will stop wasting my time with this argument. I appreciate your concern, but please get your facts and policies straight before arguing with me on this. Also, don't make assumptions about my liking of Gaga or not. For all you know, I could be someone who thinks she's the worst artist ever, but believes she deserves just as adequate attention as anyone else here. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Mynpoint is tomorrow a consensus could be made that selling 100 albums was now the qualifier for inclusion on that list. By your logic any artist who made that wikipedia defined threshold could then add to their article the claim that they are "one of the best selling artist of all time" which obviously wouldnt be true. The OR is wikipedia determining what qualifies as "best selling of all time". There is no reliable source to back this up. Its OR and synth by consensus on the entire best selling page (unless of course a reliable source has stated an artist is best selling of all time). The only way your arguement could hold water without being synth or OR would be to take the lowest selling artist who has been cited in a reliable source to be a "best selling of all time" and then also include anyone who has sold more. Currently tht page is a collection of fans arguing on behalf of their artists and overwhelming level headed editors to the point of including all kinds of artists who have never had a reliablesource identify them as best selling of all time. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point about tomorrow has no water, see WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia has not determined what qualifies. You admit that in your first sentence above. You say that "tomorrow a consensus could be made". Well, it hasn't been made about that topic yet, and never will be, because that kind of consensus would possibly be against WP policy. You have not refuted my arguments. I have warned you twice now that unless you can provide some valid points against me, I would stop discussing this with you. You have my points, your discussion is not rooted in policy, just in your own synth (as you would call it). Therefore, I am done entertaining this conversation. I will not make any changes to this article or the list of best selling artists, unless you come back with proof that it violates WP policy. Please stop trying to inject your anti-Gaga opinion into this article. Thank you, and have an excellent day. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

wow, you are either a child or just incredibly blinded by your fondness pf gaga. I do t care about her, or any other pop star. I've provided a logical reason and had another editor agree with me but you continue to refuse to admitt the lable is just a made up term some wiki editors/fans came up with (NO ReLIABLE SOURCE HAS CALLED GAGA ONE OF THE BEST SELLING ARTISTS OF ALL TIME. ONLY A WIKI PAGE HAS EVER CALLED HER THAT. ITS ORIGINAL RESEARCH PLAI AND SIMPLE. You are whats wrong with wikipedia. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't use all caps, which is akin to yelling. Also, don't personally attack me ("you...wikipedia." and "child...gaga"). Continue to do this and I will not hesitate to have you blocked from editing. The other editor has not responded to my reply to him, which is as good as him accepting my reply. This is not WP:OR because of the fact that it is just a routine calculation. All we are doing is saying that she sells more than other artists. That is a fact. It is easy to see that if she sold, for example, 10 million albums, then she is closer to best selling than someone who sells 9 million. Then we put them in order. 10m is always greater than 9m, just like 1+1 is always 2. It isn't hard to see. If you are so mad about this in the Lady Gaga article, why have I not seen you post this on any other artists articles or the list article itself? I gave you the benefit of the doubt last time, and I do promise you now I will not be replying to this anymore. And beware that I do watch the Lady Gaga page and I will know if you somehow convince someone to edit this out. If you really care about this list and the information, go post it on the talk page of the list itself. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You obviously havent looked at the list page then. I commented there as well. There is a lack of basic understanding where by wikipedia cannot define who is a best selling artist. Only a reliable source can do that. But alas, wikipedia has been over run with young editors (well documented) who prefer to write pages how they wish the world was as opposed to what they can source. Its become too frustrating to argue with editors such as yourself who just refuse to limit articles to what can be sourced. I give up. You win. Now run off and beam at your gaga poster on your bedroom wall knowing you've successfully helped to promote her. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed NEW SONG for ARTPOP 'TEA'

https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/256533045530746880 https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/256534883260837888

Lady Gaga - Tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.70.0 (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I'm sorry to have to say this, but a twitter post is not a reliable source to add this to the article on. To try and find a reliable source, check Google Scholar, another database, or some newspapers. If you can find a source, I'd love to add this. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please add album with Tony Bennett

New full length jazz album with Tony Bennett. Can someone please add this? http://www.nme.com/news/lady-gaga/66376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.73.208 (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

'ARTPOP' Stylising Error

Please change Artpop throughout the article to ARTPOP, as that is how the album and song is stylised. Kkeirwilliamss (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, see WP:MOS for capitalization. Sorry about not signing this earlier! I was on my phone and it doesn't have a tilde key, and when I clicked the thing on the bottom it wouldn't sign (I thought it had). Still can't do this edit though, see the Manual of Style. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to change the sentence "New songs for her new album Artpop were "beginning to flourish"..." to "New songs for her new album Artpop (stylised ARTPOP) were "beginning to flourish"..."? The WP:MOS page you linked to says in the "Trademarks" section that an article should have the capitalised version visible in some form. 86.31.34.21 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When there is a stand-alone article for Artpop, the note about the stylizing should be handled in the article. Since there is not such an article at this time, the IP has a point. Any objection to adding the note to the 2011–present section of this article until that time? —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, I'll leave it to you make the change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Placed in the section where the source citing the title styling is located, and included the context that it's her preference that it be capitalized in that fashion. So the actual change is in the third sentence: "Gaga announced the album's title and her preference that the title be styled as ARTPOP in capital letters in August 2012". —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012

i want to change the lead picture and add more things that i know.. Roie3600 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Changing the lead picture is contentious: you'll have to provide a link to the specific free picture you want to use there and get a wide consensus to support the change.

As for adding the other things, you'll need to specify what they are and what sources support them. For future requests, please make sure to be specific about what you want to change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest changing the lead picture to the Italian article, as it's a clearer, frontal picture. B725896 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

NEW SONG 'G.U.Y. (GIRL UNDER YOU)'

http://www.stylist.co.uk/beauty/the-passion-of-lady-gaga#image-rotator-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.108.91 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Musical influences.

Gaga stated in this video Gaga's Childhood Idol - Ginger Spice that she was inspired and influenced by Ginger Spice, Geri Halliwell and the Spice Girls when she was a young girl. I therefore believe that either The Spice Girls or Ginger Spice should be added to her list of musical influences. She states this fact very clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.1.127 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Title

Lady Gaga is named as Katy Perry in the top right-hand corner box and I don't have permission to fix it. 人一名 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done It's been fixed; thank you for spotting that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Signatures

Rules for uploading images, sound clips, etc., to Commons for use in the Wikipedias are very strict-- we can not even upload photos of musicians on stage in large venues where we must rely upon photographing the bands by taking shots from the huge screens that show them for people in the cheap seats. Because of this, I really have to wonder why signatures for living people are acceptable. I can see it for those who are no longer alive, but... ?? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Signatures fall under the category of public domain. Trinitresque (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No Personal Life Section

Please add a personal life section that talks about who she has dated or who she is dating. 173.55.18.122 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of ARTPOP

I'm aware this has already been discussed but I wanted to throw my voice in. The capitalization guidelines of Wikipedia are being misused here and taken much too literally. While they stress avoiding capitalization, particularly unnecessary capitalization, the styling of ARTPOP is supposed to be capitalized as has already been cited. It hasn't been referred to by Gaga in press as being lowercase. Madonna's MDNA is written in all caps, and while some may dismiss that example because they believe it be an acronym, Madonna herself has stated it also has the meaning is a shortened version fo her own name. But we don't write MDNA as Mdna. That doesn't make sense and that's not how the album is being promoted. To write Artpop in lowercase letters does an injustice to the work and portrays it inaccurately, and to disregard that notion under the guise of following Wikipedia's standards also flies in the face of this being a site that is supposed to produce accurate information that isn't misleading.

Wikipedia also stresses staying away from writing titles in all lowercase letters, but we have several pages that do just that with both artist names and song titles. Guidelines are not law, and they should be interpreted based on what's appropriate for the work. If an artist has pointed out that the title of their work is to be capitalized, that needs to be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decaydance2 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

AIDS and HIV are capitalized because they are accronyms, regardless of how they are pronounced. MDNA is capitalized because even though it is not an accronym, it is pronounced letter by letter like one ("em dee en aye"). ARTPOP need not be capitalized because it is not a real accronym, nor is it pronounced letter for letter. As far as I know. MOS:ALLCAPS says to "Reduce track titles on albums where all or most tracks are listed in all capitals." Trinitresque (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I too wanted to discuss about this topic.ARTPOP has to be capitalized because that's it's styling and you can't change that !! Lola212 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well this is Wikipedia, and here, you have to change the styling to conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Specifically the part about capitalization. Trinitresque (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well..whether this is Wikipedia or not..thats not the point. The Point is that ARTPOP is Gaga's album and not Wiki's, so the final decision , I think has to be hers....This is just my opoinion.Lola212 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style applies to everything: albums, books, movies, songs, games, etc. Of course none of those things are owned by Wikipedia, but the MOS still applies. If it was decided by Wikipedia editors that the original stylization should be respected, then the MOS would be changed to reflect that. For now, the guidelines say to follow specific capitalization rules that may conflict with original stylization. Trinitresque (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gaga confirmed on littlemonsters.com and on her twitter account that ARTPOP does indeed work as an acronym, in which case it stands for 'Artistic Revolution Through the Potential Of Pop'. And since it IS an acronym, 'ARTPOP' should be capitalized throughout the article. Zeus Gold Asterri (talk) 4:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Discography

The discography now has a list with studio albums and EPs and i was just wondering why that is? The Fame Monster isn't Gaga's only EP but the way it's listed makes is seem like it is. We obviously don't need to list the others because they aren't major releases but I guess all I'm saying is why can't it be listed how it originally was (below)

• The Fame
• The Fame Monster
• Born This Way
• ARTPOP

I know it's not a big deal, it's just an article. But I just don't think separating it like that is really necessary. Just sayin'. Does any of what I said make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintblonde (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stones concert

Should make note of Gaga's performance with The Rolling Stones at their anniversary concert. --90.195.223.214 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Occupation inflation

In this edit several occupations were added to the infobox and to the lead. The occupations in the lead have been reduced, but I feel there are still too many of them in the infobox; "spokeswoman" and "artist" are two examples, as neither of them are really her "occupations". Thoughts? Acalamari 09:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Spokespeople are activists (in this case), so yes, we don't need that one. And artist, well, that's just redundant. Dancer and choreographer: pick either one. Same with "songwriter" and "composer"—the former is composing too. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Should have added video director to the occupations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artpop1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How many other artists' videos has she directed? —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? you have to direct other artist's videos? and what about britney she's like only co-directed her two music videos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artpop1 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ARTPOP Article for Consideration

I was just wondering if y'all could take a look at my incubated article for ARTPOP. I think its ready for the mainspace, and is very well written. Please do give it a chance, because I did create the page for Born This Way! :) Thanks! ARTPOPist (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition to musical influences

Hello, I'm a first-time editor and I'm interested in adding Iron Maiden to the list of Lady Gaga's musical influences. Or at least, she is influenced by their fan relations. Here this the relevant support:

"I just saw IRON MAIDEN on their 'Frontier' tour and it totally changed my life. It was my first MAIDEN experience and I just realized in that moment in the show that that was the kind of artist I wanted to be. I didn't want people… 30 years from now coming to see my show to see if I've still got it. But rather I wanted them to be fully unified, fists in the air, wanna hear every song." -Lady Gaga, 2011

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=160922

Based on this comment, would Iron Maiden simply be added to the list of her musical influences? Or would there be a new sentence drawing the distinction that she is influenced by their relationship with their fans if not necessarily their sound? Also, I've never added a citation to an article before so any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seagerm1 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: bra-rifle!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The latest provocation Lady Gaga condemned by many. At the concert in Vancouver, Canada appeared on stage dressed in a bra-gun, which is after the tragedy in American Newtown where a madman killed 26 children at the school caused real consternation. Following the negative reaction to the Lady Gaga concert next change bra.78.2.84.75 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what you want changed. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar" is a spammer who adds his name to multiple talk pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013

Her upcoming album is called ARTPOP not Artpop. Just this. :) Enchnater (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Eyesnore 16:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Further, we don't disagree that Gaga wants to style her album title as ARTPOP. However, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that when a title or product name is in all capital letters for stylistic reasons only, we reduce it to title case. In other words, per MOS, it will appear in articles as Artpop. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Book

Please edit the page to note that Lady Gaga's life and work has been critically examined in the book _The performance identities of Lady Gaga_ edited by Richard J. Gray II. This book was published by McFarland and many essays relate to her music and costuming. Fans and scholars alike will want to pay special attention to Jennifer M. Woolston's essay, "Lady Gaga and the Wolf," as it traces _The Fame Monster_ album's overlap with the tale of "Little Red Riding Hood." 71.61.68.105 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

Lady Gaga's highly anticipated album Artpop is due to be releast early 2013. Artpop is going to be sold in two Volumes a standard edition and a more experimental edition.<ref>Born this Way</ref>

MilesMader (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anything about a release date for the album should probably be a very recent source, at that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Taylor Kinney

As written in the wikipedia page of Taylor Kinney, he is in a relationship with gaga. "Kinney has been in a relationship with Lady Gaga since September 2011. They met during filming of Gaga's "You and I" music video in July 2011." I think it should be mentioned in her page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.204.197 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As reluctant as I am to include this kind of information, at the very least, a reliable source is necessary. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2013

Please remove the "See also: Madonna wannabe" citation under the Artistry > Influences heading. When visiting the page that citation leads you to, it lists a plethora of artists who are considered "Madonna wannabes", such as Rihanna, Katy Perry, and Nicki Minaj. However, none of those artists have "See also: Madonna wannabe" added to their own Wikipedia pages under their Artistry headings.

There is no reason for this to be included on Lady Gaga's Wikipedia page other than to insult her, seeing as "Madonna wannabe" is an insult people use against her. It does not add to nor help Lady Gaga's Wikipedia page. Furthermore, Gaga's Wikipedia page mentions Madonna enough for people to understand that, yes, Gaga is indeed influenced by her. Anthagio (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree this is unnecessary, I'll remove it tomorrow morning if someone doesn't beet me to it.  Doing... gwickwire^talk_editing 06:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks :) -- cmelbye (^talk/_contribs) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently if I don't get up before 7 AM my time and immediately hop on my computer, someone beats me to it. Thanks :) gwickwire^talk_editing 02:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the delete was improcedent. Is necessary to emphasize with this, because is a term which has been associated with Gaga worldwide. Why deprive the reader of this?.

According to several secondary sources as America (magazine): Many a critic has dubbed Gaga as a Madonna wannabe. It may not be necessary to place it in a "template" ("See also"), but in the body of the article, ie, the section of "influences" and placing the term Madonna wannabe. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.56.253.71 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to add "Madonna wannabe" to Gaga's Wikipedia page, then it's only right and fair to go and add that to the following artist's Wikipedia pages as well: Stacey Q, Gwen Stefani, Cyndi Lauper, Regina Richards, Sheena Easton, Gloria Estefan, Yuri, Gloria Trevi, Laura Branigan, Deborah Gibson, Tiffany, Samantha Fox, Cathy Dennis, Kim Wilde, Spice Girls, Melanie Chisholm, Destiny's Child, Jennifer López, Kylie Minogue, Whigfield, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Thalia, Avril Lavigne, Shakira, Paulina Rubio, Martina Sanchez, Katy Perry, Nelly Furtado, M.I.A, P!NK, Nicki Minaj, Rihanna, Nnel Condel, Martika, and Paula Abdul. I mean, if you're truly unbiased and you don't only want to add that to Gaga's Wiki page because you don't like her and/or are trying to insult her, you have to go in and add that to those pages as well seeing as they are also included on the "Madonna Wannabe" Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, no one is being deprived of anything. As mentioned before, Madonna is mentioned on Gaga's page, thus confirming that she is indeed inspired by Madonna.-- Anthagio —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

LGBT activist yes.. but not an immigration activist

Can't we include the following on the "Americano" page? This was one single event... doesn't make her an activist for immigration:

"She also jumped into the debate surrounding SB 1070, Arizona's recently enacted anti-immigration law, after premiering her Born This Way song "Americano" on the Guadalajara stop of The Monster Ball Tour in Mexico, telling the local press that she could not "stand by many of the unjust immigration laws" in the US."

StJaBe (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This should read "anti-illegal immigration law," as described on the page it links to, not "anti-immigration law" JarynFrostwing (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Jaryn Frostwing

Age

Hello people, i want sayin that Lady gaga age 27, not 26. She was on 20 march 2013 27. 77.167.249.7 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done her birthdate is on March 28, not 20. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Addition of RNC appearance rejection

It recently came out that Lady Gaga was offered $1 million to appear at the Republican National Convention and a further $150,000 in her name to a charity. This should be included in the political activism section. The source is legal documents from an RNC related lawsuit. Here is one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witold dc (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com is an unreliable source. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert likewise offered Donald Trump $1 million for charity if he dipped his balls in his mouth, but Trump did not accept Here's a link. Blackmail is not a legitimate political activity.Jpq21 (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New Section for Artists influenced by Lady Gaga

Since 2010, pop music has been dominated by the sound that Gaga introduced. The artists (that I can think of) that have used or changed to her synthpop oriented sound include Ke$ha, Britney Spears, Madonna, Nikki Minaj, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez. I think there should be a section dedicated to how she has influenced modern pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpq21 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Umm, no, unless reliable third party sources vehemently discuss this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The "21st Century Revival" section of the wiki article on synthpop discusses Lady Gaga's place the revival of that style, and the subsequent use of the style from other performers after 2010. "Umm, no"-- jeez you don't have to be a douchebag, I'm trying to put some legitimate input into this page. Jpq21 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No it just says "Just Dance" became popular, and the style became popular again. That doesn't mean Gaga introduced the sound. And next time you make a personal attack, I will personally report you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you respect when you give me respect. It's called common decency. By starting your reply with "Umm, no" you simultaneously completely dismissed all merit to the idea I was presenting and disrespected my value as a poster. The idea is implied on the synthpop site, though it isn't making the claim outright; genre sites usually follow a narrative framework with one influence leading to another- that's the whole point of them (I can see that it is not a solid enough source to warrant a citation). Remember that this entire site is built by individual posters who wish to add to the site for the good of everyone, and mistreating posters who are trying to make valuable contributions completely works against that idea by discouraging people to post.

As for the topic, I would argue that she did introduce her new version of the synthpop sound, as I don't know of any artists before her that you could say "sound like Lady Gaga." However there are countless artists who made music after her whose music does easily "sound like Lady Gaga." I'll continue to look for third party sources discussing this, and if I find one I'll definitely post it.

By the way, I am not even a fan a Lady Gaga (in case you thought I was just a die hard fan who wanted to improve her image or something), but I care about the perception of her music because of how it has affected our culture. Jpq21 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013

I would like to suggest editing the article of Lady gaga's meat dress as well as meat couch which were inspired by a Canadian artist Jana Sterbak. Andhave2 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please be specific as to what text you feel should be added to the article and where it should be placed within the article. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Capitalization of "ARTPOP"

Can you please capitalize "ARTPOP" for anytime the name is mentioned? Lady gaga said so herself that she wants "ARTPOP" capitalized. Here is proof: https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/232114376067403776

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per Wikipedia's manual of style on capital letters, the article as written is correct. That being said, the MOS is not ironclad and there are always exceptions, but as this has been brought up repeatedly on this talk page and has yet to be changed, I'm not going to make any changes without seeing a clear consensus to do so. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"ARTPOP" and not "Artpop"

Please, can you change all the "Artpop" by "ARTPOP". Gaga said herself that she wants this album's name to be written like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taihin (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

She'd said it six months ago when we discussed it, and consensus then was to follow MOS:CAPS and only capitalize the first letter. What's changed since then? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes she said it 6 months ago, and so ? My mother chose my name 18 years ago, and it don't change anything. Not to be rude, ARTPOP have to be written like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taihin (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Little Monsters social network

'Gaga has also launched "littlemonsters.com", the first official social network devoted to fans of an artist titled that went online in July 2012'

50 Cent was first when he launched ThisIs50.com, a social network for his fans, in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.164.178 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Is an Artpop article ready for prime time?

See Artpop (2013 Lady Gaga album), which was moved to mainspace from the incubator today. Are we ready to have this article? If so, it would seem that a move to Artpop is in order for the title. Objections or concerns? —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of history merge and all is needed but main space worthy. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sent back to the incubator project: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Artpop (album) Apteva (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... this is a Class A article. --ARTPOPist (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was likely a WP:POINT from an editor upset that some other article he worked on got deleted. Situation is resolved, no need to worry about it further. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013

Greetings, I request to briefly state the fact in this wikipedia article that Stefani attended Circle in the Square Theatre School. She spent a summer in our 7-week intensive summer musical theater workshop when still in high school. It was here, as a student of our faculty member Alan Langdon that Stefani was required to read "Letters From a Young Poet" by Rilke -- where through her work with Alan Stefani discovered the meaning and quote she loves so much that she later had it tatooed onto her body. Stefani was also a student of our faculty member Jacqueline Brookes (who passed away earlier this year). Jacqueline brilliantly taught the concept of being private in public which Stefani has referenced in an interview or two. The first-hand sources of this information are the school director (since 1979) E. Colin O'Leary, Alan Langdon and Jacqueline Brookes.

So, to be specific, I would revise the sentence "Born and raised in New York City, she primarily studied at the Convent of the Sacred Heart and briefly attended New York University's Tisch School of the Arts before withdrawing to focus on her musical career." to now read "Born and raised in New York City, she primarily studied at the Convent of the Sacred Heart, at Circle in the Square Theatre School where Alan Langdon and Jacqueline Brookes were influential teachers, and later briefly attended New York University's Tisch School of the Arts before withdrawing to focus on her musical career.

Thank you,

Jonathan Mann Outreach & Development Director jmann@circlesquare.org

Jmann1633 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, first-hand accounts are not sufficient for sourcing of this type of information. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We have record of her attendance. This is the only professional musical theater and acting program she attended. She was enrolled at NYU for music. The fact is that she attended to our summer musical theater program, so why not give credit where its due? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmann1633 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

What published secondary source has her attendance record, so that other editors may verify it?

Again, we cannot use your records or self-published sources in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)