Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 14

Lady Gaga going bald from blonde dying

I put a few sentences about this issue which has been around for the past four months now and it was reversed by another user who claimed I was attacking Lady Gaga: see here. I'm not attacking Lady Gaga in the slightest. She's a natural brunette whose hair has been falling out because of the dye. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 07:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I notice from the above conversation Legolas has been notified as someone who doesn't have the best interests of the article in mind KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 07:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because a tabloid noted it, doesn't make it a notable theory that Gaga is going bald. This is violation of WP:BLP and WP:DIGNITY. How would you like if I say that you are going bald, being written about you? This is not a paper encyclopedia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga said herself that she is going bald in a a recent interview. I have sources, I cited at least three, one of them being from a tabloid but I'll get some more for you if you like. You aren't using WP:DIGNITY correctly as I am not harrassing anyone. This is not a personal attack, just reporting on what has been in the media for the past four months. See WP:V and WP:ENC. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) There's so many sources I'm just going to link to what the google search shows: see here, so you cannot disagree that this is not verifiable or relelvant or notable KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself, why is it important? How is the fact that Gaga going bald is a notable info in an encyclopedia? This is not a case of WP:V or sourcing. Dignity talks about not only harassing someone, but adding content which defames somebody without any context, which this info does. I am completley disagreeing that this is notable in any damn way. This is not a case where Gaga is suffering from a disease (Lupus) or the intersex rumors, which have context in a biography. Who doesn't go bald at some point or another? You haven't answered why is this notable and neither you can prove that it has context. Remeber, WP:V =/= WP:N. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Lady Gag losing her hair is notable as it means it will result in a different look and affect performances in the future. She is 24 years old. I don't need to explain why this is notable. The sheer number of source materials speaks for itself. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 08:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, "sheer number of source materials" =/= "notability of the subject in consideration". You are basing your opinion on something that hasn't even happened. This is again violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Please back up your claims with a more steady debate, else this discussion is over I'm afraid. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see you have a chip on your shoulder here. This subject is both verifiable and notable. Lady Gaga's hair falling out is a notable subject. Two or three sentences covering this is completely encyclopedic. If you don't want to budge on this, I'll just take it to the boards. You see this as an attack on Lady Gaga. I'm just trying to cover a verifiable and notable turning point in Lady Gaga's career, one that has already affected her in going bald and wearing wigs. I have included this in the public image section and I don't see where you are coming from at all. You're clutching at straws here to prevent any mention of Lady Gaga's severe hair loss as result of dying on Wikipedia. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would remind you not to make personal attacks here. You are basing on pure bullshit and tabloid fodder. And yes, I do see this now as an attack on the biography of a living person, because you are turning blind to a BLP issue, in face of tabloid reports and nonsense. And notable turning point? She has been wearing wigs from a long time, how the hell is this s turning point? Which goddamn singer/actor/entertainer, who frequently color their hair, doesn't have hair fall? You are still not explaining the notability of this inclusion. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there even any reliable sources claiming this? I still see none.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

None, LA Times, MTV etc all reported this, but as a joke. LA times even said, but what's the big deal. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The internet is bursting to overflowing with reliable sources on this. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't even important. --108.83.204.14 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As much as I agree with the said opinion that Legolas does not have Gaga's best interest in mind, we must maintain a neutral point of view, and Lady Gaga's hair falling out because of the blonde hair dye is irrelevant and is not notable enough to be mentioned in her article, and it will never be, until it is on national news. --QuickEditor (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think information can only be added to this article is USA national news reports it. GaGa is known in many more countries so a very BIG LOL ... I'd advice you not to say tabloid fodder because the sheer amount of sources that report on gaga on a daily - I could easily apply it to many of the said things in the article. You should discuss this with an open mind. Or else a debate should be started - where only sources in which GaGa talks herself and only American sources count. WP does not censor - so bare that in mind too. Notable is notable. The notable part may be that she wears wigs because she dyed it so many times previously - way before this. So you should look at all sources previous and make a big choice... don't just say tabloid fodder because someone in the know just might challenge you on what that means and ask you for real examples.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? Please be sure to make note of who your argument is directed towards before you add your two cents. Anyway, this section should be deleted by now. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick editor, the part about national news sources would be for you. Also, why should it be "deleted"? If other editors would like it included, then it continues until an agreement is made. It looks to me like only praise is added to this article and critisism is kept minimal. I love Lady GaGa, but in parts of this article I feel like it is a fansite shoveling out bias. I've noticed quite a few times that whenever something bad is brought up - everyone says no.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Raintheone, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability. Even so, it does not matter, it is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article. --QuickEditor (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rain, how would you like if I say that you are losing pubic hair? Would you love that fact in an article about you and have a detailed description of how you are losing it? As I said countless times, this is not a case of WP:NPOV, WP:N or WP:RS. This is a case of WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. We do not add content that just defamates a person for the sake of it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't believe this is an attack to her dignity (it's like stating if someone's gay that's wrong), I don't believe this is important enough to be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.155.85 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How to pronounce "Gaga"?

This article could use a mention of how "Gaga" is pronounced. Believe it or not, a lot of people, like me, only encounter the name in the print media. I've heard it pronounced at newsstands "Gah-gah" and "Gah-gay." Since it's a made-up name and her thing is weirdness, who knows (you I hope)? 5Q5 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gah-gah. No clue where you got Gah-gay. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 15:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose If you can find a source that shows that Lady Gaga prefers it pronounced a certain way, it can be mentioned. As of right now, the pronounciation Gah/Gah is only notable through majority. --QuickEditor (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That being true, if only one/very few person(s)/organization(s) pronounce(s) it any other way, I honestly don't feel it deserves a mention. And if it, in any way, is pronounced as offense, then definitely not, per policy. That's unlawful. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

change the main picture

The main picture of lady gaga is obviously unflattering. Are there any other royalty free photos of her that are more flattering?

Oh, and can someone else run the page besides legolas because it seems this person does not have gaga's best interest in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't see why this sentence is in here - "Early in her career she had difficulty getting radio airplay" - under the LGBT advocasy section. Is this subliminal vandalism? It seems to be worded in a way to make it look like she needed her gay fans in order to get radio airplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You can yao about me for all I care, as for your second question, it is sourced by reliable sources like MTV. Yes, she needed popularity with the LGB^T community to make an initial stand. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What would you say about this picture? It's from Wikimedia Commons, okay quality and is more up-to-date.[1]

--Theologiae (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

When you put it in high-resolution you can see, her eyes are half-closed. Not really a great picture for identification. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

agree, the main picture is kinda old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.5.154 (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another pitcture from the commons, it shows her face pretty well good quality and is a recent photo. [2] Will that do? 92.235.224.50 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're joking I hope? Have you seen the image in high-resolution? Its blurry, full of pixelated lines and noise. No way, that can be a main profile pic. Personally I love the image though. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the picture to remove as much noise as possible without making the picture a blurred mess. I don't know much about permissions and uploading to wikimedia at the moment, plus I'm not sure if it's any use so I've just put it on tinypic for now, but will [3] do? Or is this image a lost cause? ɧαεςαתɖɾσϻᴇ 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haecandrome (talk • contribs)

What about this image? Seeing as it's on an international Wikipedia, I'm not sure how/if we can use it. Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing since the Nicki Minaj article can have a "pink wig picture", I'm fine with this one too. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a free image. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What about this one? [4] - if it's cropped to remove the signature at the bottom, it'd be fine. It's fairly recent, of pretty good quality and from Wikimedia Commons. Also, I rather like this photo. Or this one? [5] - again from Commons. The lights in the background are too much, but if it's edited it'd be alright. --Effluvium (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just an opinion, but I honestly don't like that Fame era style wig Gaga's got on. I'd prefer an image of her with her normal longer hair. Just an opinion. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fussed on that wig either, but the photos are pretty good. Are we allowed to use Flickr as a source for photos? I've found a couple of good ones over at Flickr. How about: [6], [7] or [8]? --Effluvium (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Check the copyright status on those links. All rights reserved → non-free → not allowed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I think this one should be used - [9] - does it matter that the signature is at the bottom of the picture? Does it need to be removed? --Effluvium (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly high-resolution I'm afraid. :( — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Remixes

Why doesn't this article include "The Remixes"? This is what I'm talking about, http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/detail.aspx?pid=2719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not a major release. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

64 million copies sold

64 million copies sold in three years.

How reliable is this source? Anybody know? 50.43.57.43 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Most Viewed Youtube Videos

Lady Gaga's YouTube videos have reached over 1 billion total views. The singer was the first to reach the milestone, but Justin Bieber is gaining on her with over 962,726,797 total video views.

Although Gaga has the most total views for all her Youtube videos, Bieber holds the record for having a single video with the most views with the song “Baby” with over 365,428,461 views and counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy4433 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article has several neutrality problems. Wikipedia defines a neutral point of view as: refraining from stating opinions as facts, refraining from stating seriously contested assertions as facts, and using non-judgmental language. --ErickAutumn (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You really have to give examples. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

gaaagaaa

the gaga in Lady Gaga is officially written as GaGa. The second G must be capitalized(as it is not here). --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Her Twitter and Facebook profiles both say Gaga. The media sometimes uses the CamelCase spelling, but Gaga seems to be correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Albums and Singles sold

The page says that she has sold 13 million ALBUM copies, when The Fame has already sold 12, The Fame Monster is near 6 million copies sold and Born This Way has already sold 4.3 million copies. Plus, the link to the sources of that reference is dated, because it says 8/12/10 so it was from August 12th from LAST YEAR. I would like to clear that, as far as the album sales (total) the singles are too because they come frome the same source. Please, update the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.12.246 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Peaks

hey, i'm from croatia and i was interested if you'd like to put croatian peaks for Gaga's singles in discography. For Born This Way, Judas and The Edge Of Glory and You And I I do have source, but for previous singles don't.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INSERT SOURCE. THE PAGE WHERE YOU CAN FIND A SOURCE (IF YOU'RE INTERESTED) google is: HRT Airplay Radio Chart Top 40. There you can see singles list on right side, and if you click on:

14. ožujka (march 14.) you'll see that Born This Way is number one and so you must find for Judas and other singles.

~~larlepene345~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larlepene345 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Any url? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

this is for Born This Way Single number one

http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=323&tx_ttnews[cat]=356&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=108458&tx_ttnews[backPid]=323&cHash=3621d67095

this is for Judas peak:

http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=323&tx_ttnews[cat]=356&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=120606&tx_ttnews[backPid]=323&cHash=f0cdb7dbd3

this is for The Edge Of Glory peak:

http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=323&tx_ttnews[cat]=356&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=125116&tx_ttnews[backPid]=323&cHash=1247ed4af4 then click onto "novi izvještaj Airplay Radio Charta od 1. kolovoza 2011. nalazi se ovdje" blue, and then open chart in microsoft excel and then youll see its peak is no6

Larlepene345 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)larlepene345Larlepene345 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey say if i post too much here but why do you need a source for croatian peaks? I've been writing all of lady gaga's singles peaks, US, CAN; ... and croatian too.

just dance #4 poker face #1 eh eh #12 lovegame #3 paparazzi #9 bad romance #1 telephone #1 alejandro #1 born this way #1 judas #2 The edge of glory #6 you and i #61 (by now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larlepene345 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources, but you're much better off putting this info on Talk:Lady Gaga discography, since that's where the other chart information for Lady Gaga is. Also, there's no need to create a new section for each post on the talk page. Just click the edit button next to the section title and add your response to the bottom of the section. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a glance at the discography talk page makes me think they probably won't add another country, since they already have 10, but it doesn't hurt to ask anyway. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

OK I'm sure this is the 100th time someone says this, but this picture NEEDS to be changed! In no way does it represent Gaga in this present era nor does it show her features clearly due to over-editing (seriously, it rather looks like a painting of the actual Gaga). It never reflected her outré style. So please whoever put this up and thinks it's the best photo of her ever, kindly note that at least 80% of those who view this page think otherwise. Also how much does it take to put up a "legacy" section? Just asking. --HusseinIED (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We would if we could find a legitimate one. You have to understand that. I'll let someone else reply to your question about Legacy. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated, but might I ask how do you obtain such an image?--HusseinIED (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Look above. You're very welcome. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Jo Calderone

Jo Calderone redirects here, but there is no mention made of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.161.129 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Added. Portillo (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jo Calderone is apparently an alter-ego of Gaga. He showed up in an issue of Vogue Homme Japan a few months ago , along with pictures of other models, presumably also played by Gaga. In early August, she released her single "You and I", which featured Jo on the cover. He has a twitter account which updates regularly, in which he and Perez Hilton profess their love for one another. . Last week, in an interview with her pals the Semi-Precious Weapons, it was revealed that Jo Calderone and Gaga are one and the same. At the 2011 MTV VMAs, she did an extended monologue, several press interviews, and all her host duties in character as Jo Calderone - a chain-smoking Sicilian Jersey-type mook who is Lady Gaga's lover. Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And removed. This is pure WP:UNDUE. The notability of Jo Calderone as something substantial is still not established. It can be a one time thing and its just one day teh VMAs were aired. Have patience and see whether the alter-ego passes enough notability to be worthy of inclusion. A good example in this case would be Beyonce's "Sasha Fierce" alter ego which she carried forward for a long time and even administered it on her tours. This established the notability of the performance/enactment and hence there is description of it in the influence and public image. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. I was just hoping to give context. I'm not very familiar with what constitutes notability for WP articles, but this didn't seem very notable. I just figured, from context, someone could discern this better than I. Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Legolas, see the comment above yours. The Jo Calderone persona is almost the entire focus of her newest single, he's a major subject in the video, he's on the cover of the single, he has his own twitter, he was in magazines, and Gaga did the entire VMAs in character as him. It's ALREADY been established not to be a "one time thing". It absolutely deserves at least a short blurb on the wiki.71.226.189.151 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You answered your own question and query. It's the focus of the new single, not something she's doing everyday. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, trying to use part of the NPOV guidelines to disclude this information is an extremely weak argument at best, since it has nothing to do with pushing a point of view. But also, Gaga using this persona has been covered by numerous media outlets, making it easily notable enough for a single sentence mention in the article. Finally, there really needs to be something on this page to help the poor reader who types in 'Jo Calderone' without knowing who the character is and is redirected here. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see for adding this is where in the article it would fit. I don't really think it belongs in the Born This Way section where it was originally placed. Has Gaga explicitly stated that the persona is linked to her LGBT stances? If so, I would think it could find a good home in that section. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be undue if a whole section was dedicated to Jo Calderone, but there is nothing wrong with a mention that she created an alter-ego. It doesnt matter if she uses the ego for her entire career or not, that still wouldnt change the fact that it should be mentioned in her article. Portillo (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would have to go into her Artistry section; but for that to be successful, Calderone has to be a recurring persona in Gaga's work (beyond "Yoü and I"'s music video) and must have a substantial amount of critical coverage. As of right now, JC has only been associated to the visual art (single cover, etc.) of one song. I don't even feel that there should be a redirect page for Calderone and I think it should be deleted. But that won't probably be the case. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm another vote for including some info about this, I came here looking for it and will have to crawl back to google to find out what the deal is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for info, go to Yoü and I. I do, however, think that there should be some info on the 2011 VMAs if there isn't yet. She won two awards that evening and performed with a member of Queen. Just one brief sentence for due weight. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would vote that Jo Calderone redirect to the Yoü and I single page, if anywhere. That seems to be its real relevance. I saw that the name was noted in the 2011 VMAs page. It may bear some more coverage there, maybe not. It is largely irrelevant to her career thus far, outside of the single. Her whole act is performance art, and this is just one small facet of it. Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Genre(s)

Lady Gaga is essentially a pop/dance artist, but shouldn't the genres also include electropop or electronic as well? Nearly, if not all, her songs could fall within the electropop/synthpop categories. --&レア (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

She isn't widely considered to be an electronic/electronica artist so I would say no to that one. As to synthpop, that one is a subgenre of both pop and dance which are already listed, so it's redundant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ohsnapitzjake, 12 September 2011

hello, im just suggesting thst you add in early life OR add a new column thats titiled "Fun Facts" or something along those lines that Lady Gaga's name came from the popular Queen song "Radio Gaga" because she loves the song. JUst an idea...pleease take it into consideration! Jake Henry

• • • this information was noted from numerous places but from where I first herd it from was a iphone app Quizzle**

Ohsnapitzjake (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's already mentioned in the article, though not explicitly as a fun fact, no. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

13 million albums ?

Certification ONLY the fame AND Bor this way. (platinum)

7.000.000 USA 3.000.000 UK 1.500.000 JAPAN

800.000   CANADA 
900.000   GERMANY
 500.000  FRANCE (only the fame)

          >>13.700.000<<

the estimations are 20.000.000

TF+Monster15.000.000 the remix + monster EP (canada and USA only)1.800.000 BTW 5.000.000

21.000.000 Plis change "13.000.000" for the real sales of gaga albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.91.102.20 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great maths. Please, humor me with some proof. Where are the sources that confirm this? Upto date reliable ones, that is. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That estimate is from 2010. I agree that there needs to be some updates, but there aren't many reliable sources that keep up with sales. DAP388 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2011

Lady Gaga's influences

Lady Gaga says that she is influenced by Freddie Mercury, not Queen. Yet Queen's article states that Lady Gaga sites the band as her influence. If she says Freddie Mercury, then that should be mentioned in Freddie Mercury's article, not Queen's article. Queen of smart alecks 12:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaga's rise to fame

I think there should be a section about her rise to fame. She became famous at a very rapid pace, and I think that is quite a unique phenomenon. I think it could be done, as there should be a few scholastic work about her impact on pop culture. There are also interviews from several acts such as Alice Cooper and Tony Bennett that talk about her cultural impact. DAP388 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011

And where are these scholastic works? Its not available because scholars haven't written in detail about her. This thing takes time. Yes, we all know she rose fast but proper analysis of that fame won't be available until about 5 years from now. Thats how long it takes for celebrity-dom to sink in. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Minor edit: The phrase "It was Fusari who helped created the moniker Gaga..." should be corrected to read "It was Fusari who helped to create the moniker Gaga...". SecretMessages (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Guiness Record

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1670701/lady-gaga-adele-guinness-book-of-world-records.jhtml: Worth mentioning? The records she broke don't look all that amazing though, but it could be notable as the article hasn't been updated in a while. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth. We don't have a legacy section yet, so this can be a part of the biography only for now. Guiness Records are big deal somehow. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Legolas just a question. Is a legacy section already being assembled, I mean are you already collecting stuff to include in this section even though it won't be written until like 5 years from now?--HusseinIED (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

the estimated sales to >> has Certified

the estimated sale of 13 million albums are wrong you just have to take your calculator and move through each album and certifications on wikipedia and count the certifcation gaga just BTW and The Fame've 13,000,000

Lady Gaga has certified the amount of 13 million albums but sales are by 15.000.000 Music Charts , and 13.000.000 Mediatraffic they consider the market in Japan, Germany, USA, UK, France, Australia and New Zealand with weekly update For Born this way are 4.500.000 millions. the remixes only in japan sold 250.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.177.38 (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd Picture Under The The Fame And Fame Monster

You know that the Gaga performing at the Monster Ball Tours looks inappropriate, should we remove it or change it? Spectra999: See my discussion or my contributions 15:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What's so inappropriate? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Josephpakizegi13, 25 September 2011

Lady Gaga is already working on new album. http://www.nme.com/news/lady-gaga/59408

Josephpakizegi13 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENTISM. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hbeya, 26 September 2011

She used the drum in the iheartradio festival singing the song "Hair" dedicated to the 14 year old Jamey Rodemeyer who has just died last September 18,2011.

|instrument = Vocals, piano, synthesizer, keytar, drum

Hbeya (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

edit request: first performance outside U.S.

i'd suggest to add gagas first performance outside the U.S. in july 2008 at stylenite the fashion-show of german designer michalsky. http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Michalsky_After_Show_Party http://www.masala.com/celebs/859-lady-gaga?imgN=31

--66.108.1.250 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't even consider Wikia a source at all. The second link looks questionable. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

understand. found also this: http://www.zap2it.com/news/custom/photogallery/celebrities/ladygaga_fashionweek_july08_pg,0,2538968.photo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD6zkdsfA5k --66.108.1.250 (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New Main Photo

Lady Gaga performing 2011

The main profile photo is out-dated. I found some decent pictures over at Commons. What about these? - [10], [11] or [12]? They're all from 2011 and of good quality. --90.211.157.10 (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The last one looks decent. Let's get consensus. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1 and 2 are from 2010, and problem with #3 is that the hair covers her face, rendering it kinda hazy in high-resolution. Otherwise it could have been selected. :( — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

[13] - this one? It's from 2011 and of good quality. --90.210.203.110 (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga performing 2011.jpg is a possibility, but it would need cropping for use as an infobox photo, as her face would be too small otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm keen for an update- been seeing this photo for far too long. [4] and [3] both look acceptable to me. 123.211.207.158 (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I say that we go with [4]. Once it's cropped, it'll be perfect. --90.209.250.135 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Since [4] seems to be the most popular, here is a cropped version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A similar image was present in the article, but was later consensized for the current one, since there were many users opposing the bra-panty attire. There in lies my concern with the option 4. Somehow I can't get one of her wearing that blue wig. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was a fuss about the "scanty" attire, but this is far from unusual. This image shows her face clearly, which many previous suggestions do not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you get technical about it, then actually this image shows the face but distorts it. She was probably singing something which makes her lips appear pouted and her eyes closed. I would not say that's exactly clear portrayal of the face. And that fuss about the scanty attire will come back again if this one is used. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an image that reflects more her outré style - a picture with her teal-coloured hair, for instance. That picture is not a great one, IMO, firstly because it does not fully reflect her current look (it may be of 2011, but it reflects more of her late-2009/early-2011 Fame Monster-era style), and secondly because the outfit is not one which truly highlights Gaga's style. The one in the infobox at the moment needs to be changed, but I think the picture shown at the moment is not the best option--&レア (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) Theologiae, I don't think an image of Gaga with teal hair would be appropriate for the infobox. Although she is known for her plethora of colored wigs, at the end of the day she's most notable for being a blonde.

How about File:Lady Gaga Hair GMA cropped.jpg? Recent, clearly shows the face, no weird distortion from singing, and shows her in one of her typically odd outfits for which she's notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. --90.209.250.135 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A biographical infobox image should ideally be in high-resolution which this one, after cropping fails. Problem with Gaga's recent images is that there's an abundance of it, but no quality ones. It's not impossible to get actually. I'll ask Shankbone if he shot her somewhere. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, the photo is good. But still, in no way does it reflect her outré style. Just the usual monster era Gaga in her outdated outfit! Please get a more recent and colorful one which clearly represents Gaga in THE CURRENT ERA! Problem with her is that her looks change too fast, so the picture has to be updated every now and then! --HusseinIED (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote for the picture shown just above. Portillo (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Portillo, just get this in your head, Wikipedia does NOT go by vote, its a consensus among editors which leds to a decision. Obvious errors haev been pointed in the image above and a similar image was presented in the article before, which was removed for the present version. Hence the linked image cannot be used. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Legolas, I see you commented on this photo over at Flickr. The owner says it can be used in the article "The Edge of Glory" - its a fantastic image, which could work well in the infobox. What does everyone think? Here's the image: [14] --90.210.203.77 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Relax Legolos. Dont act like an idiot. Portillo (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Continue with the name calling and WP:ANI is where you will find yourself. IP 90.210.203.77, this image suffers from the same reason a pointed above, it gets blurry and distorted when in high resolution. Remember, BLP images should be of utmost high-resolution wherever possible. And Gaga's images are not unavailable, its just that the best hasn't come by. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Its all good Legolos. I didnt like when you said "just get this in your head". Portillo (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What about this one? It's recent (2010), has a clear shot of the face (and looking straight ahead, which is generally preferable), is very good quality, and shows Gaga's unique fashion with the hair-hat. One possible complaint is that we can't see her eyes due to the sunglasses, but there are shots throughout the rest of the article that show that part of her face, no? And not to get too waxy, but Michael Jackson is a featured article and the infobox image there has an (excellent, IMO) image of Jackson wearing sunglasses that clearly demonstrates what he looked like at the peak of his fame.

I tried to look for one with no glasses but couldn't find anything recent of as excellent quality as this one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A fair portion of her face and hair is covered by that hat too, another issue. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but I still feel the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to using this image. It's certainly better than the current one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the current infobox image. The infobox image should be as clearly recognizable as possible, not as current as possible. It's not like others can't be used elsewhere in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess it isn't BROKE. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The current infobox image is not in high-resolution, and as User:HusseinIED pointed out below, it looks like a painting rather than a photograph due to overediting. The image I have proposed is of much higher quality and Gaga is clearly recognizable in the image. (And for the record, the current infobox image is actually more recent than this one – it has nothing to do with using the most current picture.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have asked User:DAvid Shankbone, who gave us the wonderful image in Madonna's article, to ask his friends if he/or them have any such pics of Gaga. If not, we can surely use the above. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 02:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you hear anything from Shankbone, Legolas? If not, I think we should go ahead and add the CES image. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Shankbone said he has asked one of his friend, who was present at the recent bizarre photoshoot Gaga did. The one where she fell down on NYC street. Let's see what he replies, if not add the CES one. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the CES. If you get any better photos we can replace the new infobox image when such pictures become available. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.80.40.174, 30 September 2011

I would just like to bring to attention that web page that is linked to reference #15 on Lady Gaga's page has been changed since it was retrieved and no longer contains information about Lady Gaga's early life such as her piano playing, her left-handedness or her college career. This is just a recommendation that a different reliable source be found for the information, one of which I can not find presently.

71.80.40.174 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This template is for making specific requests, if you are able to find a new source, please repost the template so that it can be included. --Jac16888 ^Talk 13:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

LGBT advocacy

[15] Should this be added to the LGBT advocacy section? Meeting with Barack too.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets reassess if she really meets with Obama. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

She has since met with Obama. So, it should be mentioned in the article. --90.210.203.71 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

L.A. Reid

The producer "will always regret dropping Lady Gaga from his record label, branding it the "worst thing" he has ever done"... see the link, can be used to the paragraph "After having his boss Antonio "L.A." Reid in agreement, Gaga was signed to Def Jam in September 2006 with the intention of having an album ready in nine months. However, she was dropped by the label after only three months".--NicolásTM (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

Is a legacy section already being assembled, I mean are you already collecting stuff to include in this section even though it won't be written until like 5 years from now? Also should we at least mention Jamie in the article and the whole controversy generated by his suicide and his tweet to Gaga before his death? And L.A. Reid's statement that dropping Gaga from his label was "the worst decision" he ever made?--HusseinIED (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

new external link

I'd suggest to add new external link:

• New fansite about Lady GaGa in Ukraine

KovbaskaNews (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, it's a fansite. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Main photo

Gaga performing in July 2011.

What about this one? — DAP388 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Her eyes are closed, poor view of the face, and not a good image in general for identification. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the main photo now isn't good. It doesn't show off her face, and i dont think its good for general identification. Could it be switched back to the previous photo? Or perhaps this one? [[16]] — Christianrxx (talk) 02 November 2011 (UTC)

Links

Under the heading Public Image why is president Barack Obama's name not highlighted to link to his article, when other people under that section like Chris Rock, Amy Winehouse, Christina Aguilera, and John Lennon to name just a few are highlighted, and you are able to click to their articles by clicking on their names? It is totally insulting that this even needs to be brought to the attention of anyone as this should have easily been caught. How can you have the names highlighted for those performers but you forgot to do the same for the US president. This obviously was done on purpose, because their is no other way to explain it. Every person's name before and after his name is highlighted to link to their individual articles, BUT NOT HIS?? Regardless of what your political beliefs are, everything must remain consistent. Regardlesss of whom you may have preferred to be president, well, he IS the president, so united behind him. And even if he wasn't a president, the fact that he is well known means his name should be linked to his article just as theirs are. It is very ugly to see this, as it had to be done on purpose; someone didn't want his name highlighted. Get over it. This needs to be fixed before people start going into various articles on Wikipedia and un-highlighting George Bush's name. -Remember, this is an internet encyclopedia; leave your personal views out of it.

1. It's just a link. 2. In some cases WP:OVERLINK applies, 3. In most cases, if not all, people such as Aguilera, Winehouse and Rock are mentioned multiple times in the article with links to their articles.

Barring that, you really shouldn't be stressing over someting so insignificant. Other than "looks", those links are just there to link one article to another - nothing else. It has absolutely no personal beliefs attached to the link whatsover. I'll let you know that I'm from Australia, and Barack Obama personally, is just like any other politician around the world. All the same. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New file

I think this file should be in the infobox, because this file does not show her eyes. Iuri i10 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Album

I've seen in several interviews that she is already working on her follow up to Born This Way and that it should be out in 2012. Should this not be mentioned? Here is one article that talks about it but I've seen several I agree with you! >:D they should add that + a new picture, its poor, and she has more recent ones... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazedmonster (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

http://thatgrapejuice.net/2011/09/lady-gaga-a-gaga-album-way/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.71 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. This page needs a tidy-up before any new information comes in! Stephenjamesx (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good article?

Maybe without all those grammar mistakes =/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.219.150.142 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to comment where those errors are please keep your comments to yourself. Read WP:TP. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

this article is depressing to read, it is so full of negative crap, however, it is interesting to note all the negative crap. I guess we go elsewhere for something positive.;>jamvaru (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Main image

The current main image is a bit naff. Here are my solutions: File:Lady Gaga in Rome.jpg or File:Lady Gaga EuroPride 2011 06.jpg Stephenjamesx (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with them is that they're quite low resolution. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your first suggestion woud be best, she has the cat walk going for her.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

I read only the introduction of this promotional piece, and couldn't stop myself from cringing with every sentence.

• "Introducing her to universal popularity"--pov
• "and accomplished positions within the top fifteen elsewhere"-- pov, and there is no "top 15" chart tier: there's only a top 3, then top 5, top 10, top 20, and then top 40.
• "Introducing her to universal popularity, its first two singles "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" were international number-one hits while the album itself reached the top of nine record charts worldwide – including the Billboard Dance/Electronic Albums chart where it stayed for 106 non-consecutive weeks – and accomplished positions within the top fifteen elsewhere."-- sentence is too long because the writer is trying to pack every one of the album's accomplishments into one sentence.
• "The album's successors The Fame Monster (2009) and Born This Way (2011) achieved similar enormity in success"-- barf.
• "eighteen-month-strong worldwide concert tour"-- no other way to say this?
• "Further international chart-topping singles like "Bad Romance", "Telephone", "Alejandro" and "Born This Way", her involvement with humanitarian causes and LGBT activism, in addition to her outré, flamboyant and ever-changing contributions to the music industry through fashion, performance and music videos have cemented her place as a global figure in popular music and culture." unnecessarily convoluted. And how is her contributions "ever-changing"? She's exploited the same shtick since her debut
• "Gaga is revered as the Queen of Pop who is among the best-selling music artists worldwide and the best-selling digital artists in the United States". [Revered: transitive verb; To regard with awe, deference, and devotion. synonyms: revere, worship, venerate, adore, idolize.] Are we serious here?!
• "Gaga's numerous achievements include 4 Guinness World Records; 5 Grammy Awards; several MTV awards; 1 American Music Award; 3 number-one singles in the United States; 2 consecutive appearances on Billboard magazine's Artists of the Year (scoring the definitive title in 2010);[4] regular placements on lists composed by Forbes;[5] and an appearance on the Time 100 list of the most influential people in the world." Don't need to list all her awards in the intro. That's what her awards page is for.
• "In a career spanning a mere three years" pov.

Can we have a non-fan rewrite the intro, and possibly the rest of the article? Orane (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with living bios; they are never stable. Anyway, I do not want to re-write the lead in fear of being biased. I understand how gross these POV-y sentences are, ("universal popularity" in particular). I will make a few adjustments to remove the POV, but this will only be a temporary solution. Yes, I am a moderate fan of Gaga, but I can make simple fixes. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything you can do for the article will help lol. I doubt the intro can get any worse. It basically says Gaga is the greatest of all time, without actually saying it. I'm surprised that you're a fan of hers. My initial impression was that you're a fan of less mainstream music. For me, Lady Gaga is the epitome of everything that's wrong with the music industry. Orane (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer hip hop and techno, and can barely tolerate pop and soul. Gaga's vocal ability and aesthetic artistry are the reasons that I actually appreciate her. Anyway, enough of the forum-ish talk, the lead is indeed biased and would not survive GAN. Extra attention needs to be in place for big BLPs like Gaga, Adele, Rihanna, etc. It will be difficult for you to find someone willing to develop the lead, let alone the full article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

-It seems your criticisms are just as biased as the original sentences are; by saying "barf" and "epitome of everything wrong in the music industry" you make it clear you do not like her. It's okay to not be a fan but your ignorance just proves you're making judgements based on assumptions you have made about Gaga and not actual facts. Anyone with a knowledge in music and who has done their research on who Lady Gaga is and what she is about knows that She is a very talented and smart woman. I agree some things in the article are biased and yes those do need to be changed, but it seems you're more interested in making the article biased in your favor and as vague about her accomplishments as possible in an effort to make her seem low-brow because you have some self-righteous dislike for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anqrew (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite his obvious dislike of the artist, everything he has said is true (though there was no need for the snarky remarks). Also, how exactly is he making the article biased in favor of himself? I could understand if he was the one editing the article, but he only pointed it out, he is not editing the article himself. - Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-written intro to be neutral, informative and appropriate length, if you want to check it out. However, I did disagree with the description of Gaga merely as a "recording artist". Of course, she is one, but she writes or co-writes virtually every one of her songs! If that isn't songwriter-like enough, then what is? A singer-songwriter isn't a style of music, even though many of them do perform in the rock/hip hop/soul hemisphere, it's a profession. If you are a pop/dance/electropop artist like Lady Gaga and you still write your own songs, you're still a singer-songwriter! --&レア (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

No, a singer-songwriter isn't someone who merely sings songs and write songs. The term is usually designated to the more folk-y, indie type artist who write certain types of songs and, generally speaking, usually perform with a single musical accompaniment, and in a more acoustic setting. Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen are singer-songwriters. Heck, even Sarah McLachlan and Adele are singer-songwriters. Read the sixth paragraph here or "The Singer/songwriter Tradition". Most pop stars are not singer songwriters, but are singers who write their own songs. As such, these crop of pop stars are "singers and songwriters" and not "singer-songwriters". So, yes, it is a style of artistry, more aligned with the folk-acoustic tradition, and not with generic electro-pop. Orane (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Singer-songwriter is definately limiting the definition of what she is as she is also an accomplished pianist.

the criticism i see here is personal by someone that obviously has a serious hatred of Lady Gaga. They talk about point of view while using terms such as "barf" and saying "every sentence made me want to cringe." If they can not come up with a serious objective criticism, they should not be contributing. When someone such as Tony Bennett who has worked with Aretha Franklin and Paul McCartney says he has never met anyone more talented and even a former President (Bill Clinton) call her "the most talented there is", while at the same time being the biggest selling female artist of the last 3 years who rose to the top faster than any other artist I can think of outside of Elvis, it is hard to take seriously the argument that she is not one of the greatest talents alive today and worthy of the praise she receives especially when no one of any sort of significance has any serious criticisms of her music. I can not think of a current artist that has a more diverse fanbase. You may not like the way the article is written as far as the choice of words but it would be hard for you to prove that anything is unworthy of being there. And where do you propose to find this non-fan of gaga willing to take the time to re-write an entire article of such a massive figure while being completely objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.119.72 (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The "choice of words" is precisely what he is referring to, buddy. Fixer23 (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a debate about who is the greatest artist since the beginning of the known era. As Fixer23 stated, my comments refer only to the choice of words. When readers come to the article, let them draw their own conclusions based on the facts (She had this number-one, or sold this amount etc). But don't beat it in their head that Gaga is the best of the best. Because that's a matter of opinion. Orane (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)