Jump to content

Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

"...an international icon, the first truly massive star of the 21st century"?

Since artists such as Britney Spears and Madonna have had such quotes, or those of a similiar kind, in their biographies and/or introductions, since Lady Gaga has become such a massive force in the music industry and pop culture, shouldn't there be mention of such credibility to her name in this article? Drakehottie 19:02, 09 June 2010

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1641109/20100608/lady_gaga.jhtml

Madonna's career span = 26 years
Britney's career span = 12 years
Gaga's career span = 2 years
Too warly to make such a statement, albeit MTV reporting it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change " Associated acts = Lady Starlight, Space Cowboy" to "Associated acts = Lady Starlight, Space Cowboy, Beyoncé Knowles" because They have written and performed two songs ("Video Phone" and "Telephone") together

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 02:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

This article doesn't really mention criticism of Lady Gaga's act, e.g. that her works are derivative, or "ripped off" from other stars like Grace Jones. Critical reception is relevant to the article, especially since so much of her act is based around her persona, not just her music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasfrau (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It would not be a very good article if it did mention that kind of criticism, which is stupid crap. Does Gaga work or not? Has she credited these other people? Would she still be Gaga without them? DinDraithou (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Those criticisms came from primary source, ie from Grace Jones, MIA etc, who criticized Gaga. Surely, they of all people don't have any business criticizing others, and Wikipedia doesnot endorse peer criticism. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of criticism in this article. Too much actually, and this is not a magazine or rumor-gossip hate site. Wikipedia is meant to display facts about a topic in encyclopedic form. If Madonna were in the encyclopedia it would not mention her banned video "Like A Prayer". If Michael Jackson were in an encyclopedia they wouldn't focus on where he got his style. There is no proof or evidence that Lady Gaga derived her style from the so called Grace Jones. If there is proof post it here. Lady Gaga and Akon say they have developed the Gaga style from Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, and Elvis. Now again we need proof, such as Gaga admitting to such. But again this small note would never ever be in a real encyclopedia which this is. Criticism on Lady Gaga's efforts to evoke rights for homosexuals wouldn't be listed either in an encyclopedia, nor her rumors of being a hermaphrodite, amputating a leg, being concieved by Madonna, and making religion a subject for all would never ever be listed in an encyclopedia. This isn't an article about Hitler, its about a young woman who sings and uses eccentric styles, like many other artists. --Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaga has not received uniformly positive reviews for her work. Criticism differs from hate, even "rumor-gossip hate." Take this quote from a review in the Guardian:

"I'm defying all the preconceptions we have of pop artists," [Gaga] recently told one journalist, seemingly confident of a place in the history books as the world's first pretty female singer performing synthesiser-heavy R&B-influenced pop. "I'm very into fashion," she clarified, all previous pretty female singers having apparently performed their synthesiser-heavy R&B-influenced pop clad in stuff they grabbed at random from the George at Asda half-price sale.

Wikipedia regularly includes links to articles about so-and-so being "number XX in Time Magazine's greatest artists of XYZ." The "personal style" section already has criticism of her fashion sense. Sartorial issues cannot be proved, but it can be proved that so-and-so, from respected publication X, has mentioned it. ––aliasfrau

Sorry, but I have forgotten a comma, thanks for noticing. I'm just saying that if you want to have a more grounded article it shouldn't include gossip stories and rumors. Criticism on an album, music, or music video would be fine since that is the criticism an artist deserves. Not personality disses. Let's get real. Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Agree, this section is totally pointless as it is based on opinions not facts, and it seems like it was added by a hater not from a neutral point of view. I just edited it to make it shorter and correct the spelling mistakes. I really think it should be deleted, she has received positive reviews as well as negative ones from people, artists and critics alike. All of her albums and most of her her songs received positive reviews. And this section portrays her as being panned by critics, artists and all people except her fans, thus avoiding the "neutral point of view" policy.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Favorable opinions have been added to the reception section. Language has been neutralized.––Aliasfrau (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of what? Her life? Album reviews should be added to the album's article and reviews of her fashion and persona should be added to the "Public Image" section. Otherwise, why don't we put all of her singles' reviews, album reviews and live performance reviews on her article... no wait a second, why don't we put what all the people in the world think about her everything on this article???? This is completely pointless and stupid. The editor disliking her doesn't mean he can write whatever he wants on her article.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Gaga's song

we have to fix it! it's red! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You can fix it by linking the song titles to the album that they come from- I assume that all of Lady Gaga's albums are the subjects of articles? Those songs that are well-known separately from their albums may have enough information available to write an individual article about the song. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy

"After a dispute with her label, "Alejandro" was chosen as the album's third single and it became her seventh consecutive single to reach the top ten on the Billboard Hot 100, the accompanied music video generated some controversy for Gaga's use of blasphemy."

I've watched the video many times and I saw no blasphemy. Is the above comment the opinion of an editor, or is it quoted from somewhere? I see not reference or citation.

The video does have a few shots of Catholic imagery, such as Gaga in a Nun's habit, another with her and rosary beads. I know some people would consider any Catholic images as inherently blasphemous. However, I think for the above quote to be accurate, she would need to actually show "irreverance" to artifacts or using words -- Not merely having Catholic imagery in a secular video.

Perhaps the above quote would read better if it said something like "...the accompanied music video generated some controversy for Gaga's use of Catholic imagery.

75.72.39.145 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence may just need to come out, since there aren't sources to back up either the outcry over "blasphemy" or the dispute with the label. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Picture

Can someone please change the first picture on the article. I'm sure there are plenty of other pictures that portray her in a more proper and dignified essence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.33.191 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say it's hard to have a dignified essence when you spend your entire public life either hiding behind stupid hats or dancing in your underwear. But I grant you the image we currently have is not great, but it is one of the few to show her face. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've no strong opinion on the matter, but there's File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless.jpg (which I believe was previously used as the lead image) or File:Gaga on Fame Ball1-edit.jpg, both of which show here face but the rest aren't really of usable quality and certainly not for a lead image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way wikipedia, the photo depicting Lady Gaga reminds me of a vampire/prostitute there are plenty more pictures of Lady Gaga, I would love to see a picture of her with brown hair but whatever fits. Find a picture with her skin covered because alot of people especially kids follow Gaga and a better influence (positive excuse me sorry) from wikipedia could help. So do so please, 1. Change Picture 2. Find One With Her Skin Covered 3. Non-Protitute would be nice 4. How about her brown natural hair?? Just saying Thanks Global.Geo.Historic.Data--Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that GaGa is actually very well represented by the picture used here. the aim of this article is surely to create an accurate picture of GaGa and her life. this picture represents the image that gaga constantly gives out. and is therefore extremely relevant. I would vote against changing it. because gaga has a specific image and that picture represents it. Ksood91 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we make this one her article picture, it represents her a lot better File:Gaga-monster-ball.jpg--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That picture is quite blurred - maybe look for one of higher quality Ksood91 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's blurred because it's enlarged, once you fit it in the info box it becomes high quality.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Heart Beats

File:Heartbeats by Lady Gaga @ NAMM 2010.jpg Ok, Lady Gaga is also an inventor as proof here this article should feature a section on this creation. Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Are you implying that Gaga invented headphones? Quite the crap. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wtf is your problem? I never said that its a type of headphones sold at best-buy created by lady gaga. Do I have to explain this into more detail?Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

I agree -GaGa was the creative force behind heartbeats and is now also the creative force behind polaroid. her work outside music should also be mentioned. and there really is no need to be so rude Legolas Ksood91 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception

What is this? Can someone explain the critical reception of her life? it seems that GaGa has been copying all time and the critica have not gave her positive reviews! AriandaGAGA (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Agree, every time I delete it or something they say I have to provide a reason, I think the section is totally pointless as it is based on opinions not facts, and it seems like it was added by a hater not from a neutral point of view. I just edited it to make it shorter and correct the spelling mistakes.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is no point to that section. Everyone has an opinion these days. An Encyclopedia does not need to two cents of random nobodies who claim to have expertise in a field. Wikipedia is getting worse and worse on this issue and frankly Its going to get to a point where the world as a whole will not take wikipedia seriously. Frankly I'm at a point where I am going to just stop editing on wikipedia because of these types of issues. Back in the day when you opened an encyclopedia you did not get all the opinions of random people. It was to the point. This section is not to the point because it has nothing to do with the point. It should go. --Alextwa (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this section is indeed needed, but it needs to be more balanced. I'm glad the article points out how unoriginal and fake she is though. --FnH (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, see? you think it is needed because you dislike her, it's not about what you think, this is an encyclopedia, it has no business pointing out her flaws, besides, if you think she is fake, other people think she is truly talented, such as her fans. I dislike Twilight, but do I go writing "TWILIGHT SUCKSSSSSSSSSSSS" on the article???--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I was adding contrast to your motives. I felt like you don't want this section to be in the article, because not all of it is positive. I think the section is indeed important, whether all of it is good or bad. Plus, I did say "it needs to be balanced"... --FnH (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, as far as I can tell, you don't. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the question of how to best sum up the critical reception of Lady Gaga's work, though. How do you think we could best choose which music critics are significant enough to be quoted here? How about, only people who write for notable music publications, and then try to sum up the consensus that comes from what they've written about her, both positive and negative? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The reviews written will be concerning the albums or singles, which have to be put on other articles not on her main page... otherwise, we can put all the reviews on an artist's main page. What I'm saying is that this section does not belong on this article nor is any portion of it. We can delete it then separate its many parts and put it in different articles where it belongs.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is a phenomenon, almost like a trend of sorts. This is why it's important to have a section for public response. --FnH (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that the article about Lady Gaga should not include any information about how her music has been received critically. In fact, I think that a section on that subject is important. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, if anything it should be expanded. What is here "treatment of her little monsters"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The section should be merged to the musical style, as the critical commentary is appropriate there, like other music related bio articles. I have removed the peer reception of her work, since Grace Jones and MIA receptions are hardly notable and are biased. I have kept the critical commentary of her music, how scholars and critics receive it and how her work is creating influence. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with your deletion. As I stated before, Lady GaGa is a phenomenon from image to music and for this reason the main article itself should have a response-section. And in any case, you shouldn't remove a part of the article before reaching consensus. --FnH (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Using words such as "phenomenon" just gives a hint of the fancrufty addition that you endorse. Also, please look through the article. I haven't deleted anything significant, just merged it with the musical style section. No bio article should have a specific critical commentary section, except songs, albums, books and media articles. A specific music related article should have the critical commentary based on the music, not on whether she has a "hermy dick" and calls her fans "monster" because she is a "phenomenon". Such tabloidy additions are not welcome. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This, I agree with. But, again, the reception is not based on someone's life, it's the image that she is selling. Hermy dick, monsters etc is irrelevant to the article. But the reception should not only include musical reception. --FnH (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Her image comes from her music, not the other way round. She is primarily a musical artist. The wacky images and the shock tactics are all promotional devices, however contrary she might say and has been reported in media as such. We already have a separeate Public Image section, where the aspects of her image is discussed. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the merging thing. And this is called neutralizing, not the ones before, and it explains the critical reception of her whole image, not a specific album.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

third studio album

Lady Gaga stated on Larry King Live that her third studio album is complete, but will not be released in 2010. Rather being released in 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.12.78 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's new album is called The Love Beast and is said to be released around February 2011. The name of her first two singles from The Love Beast are called The Beast Inside and My Heart is Frozen and she plans on shooting the music video for The Beast Inside sometime in the Spring next year. This is according to Lady Gaga's Official Website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.57.49 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning data exfiltration mention

Army Intel specialist Manning claimed to have exfiltrated data using a CDRW labelled Lada Gaga, and he mentioned "Telephone" in conversations with Adrian Lamo.

I don't know squat about LGG but I think this is an interesting sidenote.

YMMV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.186.77 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Again. What? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No doubt it involves the Illuminati and the CIA. Total wtf. DinDraithou (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro

Hello all. I was wondering why there is no remark about "Alejandro", Gaga's third single in the article. Thanks. — MyDecember (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Rolling Stone interview

I like just read it. Dates from like May 27-28 in England, like a couple of days before the SHOWstudio.com interview. The last lines of it, like, are:


The problem is that, like, it is pretty much worthless. There is like almost nothing new or interesting. However this part was like funny:


Like oh my god that's like just bizarre. Or like maybe she was, like, being funny? I like totally belong to the Illuminati and we like don't actually have any, like, psycho rituals like that. Super cool, Gaga. DinDraithou (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, can you not post such things which doesnot actually discuss about the article? if you are not familiar with WP:NOTFORUM, then I suggest you please do so. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, like wait. I get it like just plenty, Legolas. I've been around, like, for awhile now and follow the rules like most often. Since I'm a high quality contributor I get to have fun sometimes. That's just how it is. And I gave you quotes. Have some fun with them! DinDraithou (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No offence, but I just don't want any admin to come over and delete the section or add a {{notforum}} tag on the article. Hence its better we take it on user talk pages. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair points. But it reads more like one of those countless little gossipy news pieces (written by computers) all over. I don't post at forums. ... In any case, look above and dwell on the first quote, the short one, her last from the interview. At least two of those three little sentences are worth adding to the article! DinDraithou (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

far too much boring, irrelevant padding here

ah, wikipedia - still as stuffed up with fans' maunderings as ever. if you ever hope to aspire to being an actual encyclopedia you would do away with nine-tenths of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.124.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So don't read it then. In any case the lead is a potted summary of salient points, so you can leave off when you get to the table of contents. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"She had a core group of friends; she was a good student

The girl named "Hollie" that claims to have went to high school with Lady Gaga actually lives in England and is only 17 years old. There is no way she knew Lady Gaga. It's a third party source anyway and is not a reliable source. She is a girl sending emails to newspapers for 15 minutes of fame and has told a number of lies to other papers. This line should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Next time, please don;t create such a big header, and state your reasons and references here. Wikipedia doesnot accept any original research. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1641989/20100621/lady_gaga.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.20.190 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

albums sales

something is not make sense you have a mistake with the albums sales 

"the fame" sold 10 million
"the fame monster" sold 2 million
 togther its 12 millions

how did you get to 15 millions ?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bar17 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fame soid nearly 9 millions copies and the fame monster sold 2 millions copies, so total is 11 million copies, less than both 12 and 15 in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.108.113 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

so if she sold 11 millions albums how did they get to 15 ???? i know that the "fame" was a huge success but the fame monster is not even close to the success that the fame had i dont know from where the wikipedia people bring their information

If you look at the footnotes, the 15 million figure came from the Times of London. The story has disappeared behind a paywall, so I personally can't verify the story. Can anybody else, or has anybody seen a free archived version of the story? —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaga's roots... and work with Nick Knight

It is confirmed from this website titled "blame grandma" that lady gaga's mother is half italian (so's her father) and half french/ german/ english. Not that it matters, but for those of you who were wondering there you go. The page mentions Gaga being the child of Italian American parents. However her mother is named "Cynthia Bissett" which is a name from a Scots/Irish family, or a form of the French name Bessette. Her dad really seems to be the biggest influence on her and we don't hear her talk about her mother that much. But i think it's important to note her mother isn't Italian to understand where Lady G comes from. She's a Bissett from Ohio which is interesting. If it's the Scots Bissett then her mother is possibly protestant versus the very catholic Italian side of her family too. JG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnygie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I'd just like to say that even though Gaga did seem to talk more about her father and seem closer to him, that would be because he almost died and was afraid therefore she expressed her concern. I highly doubt Gaga loves her father more than her mother.

You're quite right, but the problem appears to be that her mother's family aren't quite sure of their origins. Back in March a Bissett relative of Gaga's added to the article that her mother was of French, German and English ancestry, and provided a source, a pedigree hosted at Rootsweb, going back to 17th century France. Another editor removed the source as "unreliable". I restored it once but didn't look it over carefully.
Here it is.
Later I did examine it, and found it to be speculative before the mid-19th century, alleging that the Bissetts were French Canadian Bessettes, descended from a "Jean Brisetout" (1642-1707), born in "Cahors, Lot, Midi-Pyrénées, France". Unlikely, unless they have old family traditions. Given their region they are far more likely of direct Scotch-Irish origin. Bissett is a Scottish surname (associated with Aberdeenshire?) with possible but unprovable Norman French origins, the "root" not being agreed upon. Several of the large Gaelic clans appear to have small Bissett septs, but what that means or says nobody can really say. Independent origins? A dispersed French (or possible Flemish) family? The Scottish monarchs invited plenty to Scotland and not all were able to form proper clans. In any case, the Scots pass on "clan names" and surnames more or less randomly below the level of the nobility, and genetic research has shown they are typically made up of multiple lineages.
Gaga is rumoured to have contacted the College of Arms to discover what she can, and I hope they are capable of helping her without misleading her into believing she might have "noble" ancestry. So do we all. But it's largely about where it actually is to be found in our family trees. They may direct her to the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scotland's so-called "authority" (incompetent pushovers). We'll see what comes of it. DinDraithou (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All of this above seems to make sense. The surname Bissett does appear to be French or English, depending on the original spelling of the name, however Lady Gaga has specifically stated numerous times that she is Italian on both sides of her family. It seems unlikely that she would lie about such a thing although Gaga does seem closer to her father than her mother, but wouldn't that make her mother upset if she's always constantly saying she's Italian-American and nothing else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.149 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the cutest things about Gaga is her working class background and resulting glamourous insecurities. Her father's family may be from Jersey City, of Sicilian origin from Palermo,[1] but her mother was born and raised in West Virginia, although the more midwestern Northern Panhandle.[2] To a city girl like Gaga that may feel like the worst thing, or who knows what she really thinks, if she has the time for it now. Hard work eventually made it possible for them to move from Great Kills to the Upper West Side, and they were able to send Gaga to Convent of the Sacred Heart when she was something like 13, if memory serves (read it somewhere).
The public have gotten this wrong impression she's from a wealthy family, judging from where she was educated and her being so into fashion. It doesn't look like her fault, after mentioning in early interviews that she "didn't belong to the same social class" as some of the other girls at Convent, and that she went to NYU on student loans, which she paid off after getting signed. DinDraithou (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to tell if the rootsweb source at [3] is reliable or original research. This is not an ideal source for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. That's what I should have thought before restoring it that one time. It looks reliable enough for a few generations, where sources are provided, but the rest is not the work of a professional genealogist or scholar. That said, the researcher is not uneducated and should be thanked for her efforts. DinDraithou (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rootsweb is probably unreliable. They said Lady Gaga was a man (no that is not true) and has no siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.149 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rootsweb probably fails WP:V if the material is controversial or likely to be challenged. It should not be used as a source in a high profile article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be true that Gaga's mother has some English or French ancestry, however Lady Gaga has never mentioned that. In this video she states that both her parents are Italian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pMnnISo3ag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.149 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Despite the fact that Lady Gaga has said that over and OVER again, hopefully she was lying.

Maybe the "Bissett" surname of Gaga's mother comes from the "Bisetti" surname found in Italy. Many immigrants had their surname anglicized in America. Opinoso (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no one knows for sure. It seems weird as to why Lady Gaga would constantly swear up and down that her mother's Italian-American if she's not however, it's totally irrelevant and insignificant which culture or nationality Gaga is of. She is a proud American girl (and an amazing artist) and that's all there is to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.54 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

SHOWstudio interview

She talks at some length about her background in the 2 hour long SHOWstudio.com interview the day before yesterday. As far as I can tell from it, Convent of the Sacred Heart have declined to continue any association with her family once her sister has graduated, or allow them whatever status. Awful if true. Gaga is genuinely upset about it.

Not the brightest decision, for obvious reasons. And it's not like these American schools are filled with proper bluebloods. For the most part the families are not American noblesse d'épée (no such thing really), even if worth a few hundred million or a few billion. They're middle class and of no greater origins ultimately than Gaga's family.

Hopefully she'll continue to make good friends in Great Britain and Europe and elsewhere. I want to see a greater and greater artist. DinDraithou (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing interview

For some reason we don't have any facts or quotes in the article from this nasty Times Online (The Sunday Times) piece from early December last year. Here is Gaga on her parents (pg 2):


What the hell? The interview was widely read because there are many comments. I have only known a few things about Gaga since March, so perhaps it once appeared here.

The interviewer Lynn Barber may be unpleasant to read, but it is full of fun Gaga things, like her work with Nick Knight (photographer), whom it just so happens is the founder and director of SHOWstudio.com, which interviewed Gaga three days ago, as I posted above.

So what do we add from it? DinDraithou (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to rewrite/expand Gaga's Early life section a little, using this material. After rereading the Barber piece I'll review several more, then start sometime later today or maybe tomorrow. Just letting everyone know ahead of time. DinDraithou (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Bump. I suppose I'm still trying to figure out how to work in Barber's churlish "load of impenetrable art bollocks", preceding her quoting Gaga on Nick Knight, and having nothing clever to say about it. But I am proud that my contribution on Gaga's "lower-class" background, which was the easy part, remains. DinDraithou (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

fans (Friends on Facebook)

think this should be mentioned 117.24.77.108 (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done. See the end of the Public image section. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

BAD romance eye concern

watch the video, my english is not that good so let the video talk. 120.33.175.21 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough notability. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

appearance

shouldn't we put her tb apperances like gossip girl and boiling points and the hills .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.225.75 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady GaGa on Boiling Points?

Why no mention of her past as an MTV intern? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIK-yzlxiU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.46.221 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They never say her name, its just a girl that kind of looks like her. Sounds like original research. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
MTV said she appeared on Boiling Points.--The lorax (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Straight from the horse's mouth. I added a see also link to the section of the show's article about her appearance. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Age?

My father is in the music industry, and has quite a few friends who new gaga in her days in the brooklyn club scene. they seem to remember working with her when, according to "official" information, she would have still been a young teen. according to these people, lady gaga is still in her 40s. are we really going to just accept official info? do you all really believe this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.0.157 (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like anecdotal evidence, which is not a reliable source. The birth date given by reliable sources is March 28, 1986, and would have to stay unless new evidence emerged.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
40? Incredible. She looks a lot younger and indeed she looks her official age. I know aesthetic surgery has made huge progress these last years but she can't be in her 40's, definitely... --Actarus Prince d'Euphor (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch the Boiling Points video. There's no way she's a day over 30. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Name

The story of Fusari writing "Radio Gaga" and it being autocorrected to Lady Gaga seems questionable: Is this more than a PR invention? Can this be reproduced at all? Which phone would do this, with which input and correction algorythm? T9? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.199.119 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Protest in St. Louis

Shouldn't someone mention the protest that took place in St. louis by the Westboro Baptist Church?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much mainstream coverage of this, perhaps because the media is tired of the constant publicity seeking antics of Fred Phelps and his crew. This article looks at the story, but it is not notable enough for the article in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A very good article

The article on The New York Times, titled Girl Pop’s Lady Gaga Makeover, draws very good parallels between how Gaga has changed the music industry since her arrival, and her influences on her peers which is starting to show. Do you gorls think it will be an important addition to the article, or we wait per WP:RECENTISM? --Legolas (talk2me) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody ultimately read this? — Legolas (talk2me) 09:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have read it and believe it is worth mentioning. Just as we mentioned what were the critics' and people's views on her persona. Although I think it should be written in a whole new section such as "Legacy" or something.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
But don;t you think a section called Legacy is a little bit premature? — Legolas (talk2me) 10:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a section called "Legacy" is a bit premature. That usually is reserved if she retired or is dead. I suggest that a section like that would be too early as she has been on the scene for only around 4 years. Despite the article saying so, we should wait a while before you can attribute such an idea. Until her peers and critics universally say so, such in the case with the likes of Micheal Jackson revolutionizing music when he was around.Timestep (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I would slightly digress with you when you say "That usually is reserved if she retired or is dead." People like Madonna or Janet Jackson or Michael had/have a legacy section even when they are/were alive. Legacy doesnot come after you are dead, but for your work, influence and contribution. Gaga's contribution are immense, but as I said, its premature. Next year another whirlwind artist can come by and wipe her accomplishments like Windex, then that won't remain her legacy anymore. Hence, as with Madonna and JJ, lets wait for some years before adding something. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I will agree with you. But I'd like to point out that you mistook me and singled out on one of my points. It's ok, but I understand your point. Timestep (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Public Image

While reading the article on Gaga's public image I saw on the last paragraph the last two sentences talk about her popularity on the internet and social networking sites. I personally believe that should be a seperate paragraph on her public image. It should include information about how she constantly uses the Internet as a tool to engage her existing and new fans (As said in her SHOWstudio interview) which results her being a massive hit on the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook, and the video broadcasting site, Youtube.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody consider this?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you found any scholarly or journalistic analysis to back this claim? — Legolas (talk2me) 12:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
For the section saying that she uses the Internet as a tool, she has said that herself in her SHOWstudio interview here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5d8dHwOWxU&feature=related she starts talking about it at around 4:05 and stops at around 9:10. To confirm her popularity on the internet here is a cbc article http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2010/07/05/gaga-facebook-fans.html.Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually for more updated statistics go here http://www.famecount.com/all-platforms/ though the website itself doesn't look reassuring all the information is updated and accurate and is used to recive information for top news stations and newspapers such as bbc, cbc and the new york times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackjacks101 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. Do you want to create a whole new subsection for how she markets herself? Or just a paragraph mentioning this? Her section on Public Image is quite large so I would suggest a new subsection..Any thoughts? :| Timestep (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It's really not my decision to decide whether or not it should be included in her "Public Image" section or created as a new subsection. I just believe that way she constantly uses the Internet to help engage the public, causing her to become extremely successful on multiple websites deserved to be said in more detail on her page. Yet I must say becuase alot of the public is captivated by her unique lifestyle , it causes them to be interested in what she will do next, leading to them following her or becoming her fan. Becuase of this, it should probably be included in her Public Image. Just my opinion. --Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Legolas, since I see that you're the one who created the project to help out Lady Gaga's articles, do I have your permission to write a well worded yet clear paragraph talking about her conncection with the Internet. If you don't believe that there is enough information, I'll search for more. Also if you don't believe I'm qualified to write the paragraph I encourage you too, I've seen your writing abilities and I must say I'm impressed.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A "well worded yet clear" paragraph? Are those terms mutually exclusive for you? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well technically, you can use strong vocabulary, yet but doing so results in some readers to become confused. So I was saying I would use strong vocabulary but still keep the paragraph easy to understand. I personally find it ridiculous though that out of this whole section that is all you care about. --Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why that sentence was removed. Was it classified as useless information or was the record broken by someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.227.17 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not true. She has gotten over a billlion YouTube views but other than that not much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Um.. no, she IS the most popular LIVING person in terms of social networks, I have an account on both Facebook and Twitter. She has over fifteen million fans on Facebook Lady Gaga on Facebook and over five million on Twitter Lady Gaga on Twitter.. has any living person broken that record? Check your sources before you say anything.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if this was re-added, where would it go? If this can be expanded into a paragraph, it might be worthy to add it. It's odd to see one sentence without anything else as displayed here. An editor deleted it because it was WP:UNDUE.  Davtra  (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not true! She is NOT the person with most Facebook fans and other people have gotten a higher total YouTube upload views and she no longer holds the title as most watched video and Britney Spears is the most followed person on Twitter.User:Cprice1000 (User:Cprice1000 () 13:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

I think I made myself clear when I typed LIVING, Michael Jackson is the most popular person on Facebook, but he doesn't qualify as living. While the Twitter part is actually true, the rate at which fans are increasing is a lot more than Spears. And it would definitely be added in the public image section, as this bit would never grow to have its own section, there is nothing more to say about it.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

GagaLittleMonster: If it was to go into the Public image section, it needs to blend in. Otherwise it will be regarded as a simple fact which isn't allowed on Wikipedia.  Davtra  (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a classic example of WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT. This like social networking mediums are continuously in doll-drums and one day Gaga, the next day Bieber, etc continuously tops in terms of popularity and appeal. This is highly encyclopedic as such things can be easily manipulated by fans, which in turn is reported by the media as gossip and masala news. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you for clarifying that up for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.227.17 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Info

Why did we mention all of her singles in the article except for Alejandro and Dance in the Dark? What is the point of mentioning all of the artist's singles on his main article? Also, shouldn't we mention her "Heartbeats Headphones"? And the rumors surrounding her gender? And the protest in St. Louis? I think sources are easily found, so why not mention them?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of your first question. I'd say it's a good idea to mention most of the artist's singles in the main article. However, we should not mention Heartbeats Headphones because that is a product with not enough notoriety to be given a spot. Why bother mentioning it anyways? I'll admit I like them, but I don't see how that would be relevant to the article considering Gaga has a shop on her website, and if we mention the headphones, we'd have to mention the other special merchandise as well. We've already talked about the gender rumor. The protest in St. Louis is not important. Just because there are sources of it does not mean it should be noted in the article. Just like the sources of the 'Bad Romance eye concern' article on Yahoo; it had sources, but it isn't important enough to be notified in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.227.17 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are church protests over virtually everything. I'd say that just because there were protesters at St. Louis, does not mean it deserves to be mentioned just because it was Gaga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.227.17 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think we should mention those two singles just like we mentioned the ones before them. And what about her gender concerns? Also what do you mean by "not important"?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I agree. I'd love to, but I have no idea whatsoever on how to add it onto the article. Her gender concerns were already mentioned before, Check the top of the talk page and see the "Bisexual.. Not just in orientation" talk subject. I don't know if it's been mentioned already but one post in that thread said that the gender rumor has already been discussed. I mean not important as the massive controversy that Gaga gets all the time, such as the one story of Gaga flipping off reporters at a Mets game then proceeding to kiss a fan. That was about as important and the protests, but it wasn't mentioned. I disregard things such as that because in a few months no one would remember it that well. Don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.227.17 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gays?

Does the article really need that massive paragraph? As a straight fan I've been annoyed by it because it's really not the gays, a minority group, who determine her success. And I don't think it can be proven they have had a great deal to do with it. Plus Gaga is widely known to not even be bisexual herself in the slightest. She's incredibly straight. So what's the paragraph for? Making a few people happy? DinDraithou (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, what? As a straight fan I've been annoyed by it because it's really not the gays, a minority group, who determine her success — I am straight too, but I can easily see from the journalistic interpretation how the gay community provided her with a base, and the feeling that Gaga and the community have, is mutual and one of a respect. To be frank I am astonished that you would even feel like that. This is not an appropriate place to address such comments especially when it is backed by such reputed sources. Regarding bisexuality, Gaga has repeated multiple times that she is bisexual, an inspiration behind "Poker Face" also. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
She's not bisexual in the slightest, which anyone who knows anything knows, and you don't need to attack me. It's a paragraph about nothing, a bunch of nonsense. Why are you attached to it? I think we should talk about her teacups instead. DinDraithou (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Now you lost me. I am not going to respond to this. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you're lost. You did not enter this like you should have. DinDraithou (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm lost as to why the paragraph bothers you so much. Gaga is attributing gays for her success—whether or not they're the reason she's successful isn't the point—and she's big in the gay community, the sources are there. I also fail to understand why you're refuting her sexual orientation. She's made out with women in about half her videos and she herself confirmed her bisexuality. What makes her incredibly straight? — ξxplicit 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph closes the narrative and gives the impression that's what she's all about. Who cares if she's big in the gay community? They're a minority group. I know that sounds bad but the truth is you really don't hear that much about her and them these days. The paragraph is vestigial. DinDraithou (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty belittling. It's one thing being big in the gay community, and something completely more significant when being considered a gay icon, which she has become. Just look at Janet Jackson as gay icon, Madonna as gay icon or Judy Garland as gay icon, for example. The entire page is her biography, but claiming that the one paragraph regarding her and the gay community is undue weight is a bit startling. A Google News search very well shows that it's still very relevant. — ξxplicit 06:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would she be globally known in the industry as a 'pop' artist if only straight people listened to her or only gay people listened to her? It just happens to be so that she has a strong gay following, and credits much of her initial success as a result of them as a community. I can see why you think the article comes across the way you think it does, but it is simply not the case. People of all sexualities, ages, nationalities and cultures listen to Lady Gaga. It does not mean that she only has gay fans, otherwise she wouldn't of had near as much success. • вяαdcяochat 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That is where DinDrai is wrong I believe. He/She is basing on the misconstruction that someone influencing a minority (?) community is a pile load of crap. Wrong. Anybody's influence on any community (gay/straight/bi/vampire) is worth mentioning if and "only" if it is well documented in third party reliable sources and in the actions of the person him/herself. Which is the case here, hence I find DinDrai's concerns to be rather unsubstantiated. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Very true. She has formed a significant bond with the gay community over the years, therefore it is worth its place in the article. DinDraithou, just because the gay community is mentioned, it does not mean that the article is particularly ignorant of fans from other sexualities either. As I stated earlier, it just happens to be that she has a strong relationship with the gays. • вяαdcяochat 08:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
But the paragraph is still enormous. It just goes on and on, like that's what she's all about. Things look the way they look because they've latched on to her. This is what communities like that do and their behavior is entirely predictable, because it makes them feel powerful. What she has done in music videos and in concert and elsewhere is make "well" advised business decisions. But when she went too far with Alejandro it turned off the wrong people and became a relative failure. Again the paragraph is far too long, and trivial. It doesn't really say anything essential about her. So Gaga does some business. She's a hustler as she's said. DinDraithou (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If you don't believe it — Take a look at this link: http://poponthepop.com/2010/05/lady-gagas-girlfriend-cant-keep-her-hands-off-her/ --Fadedvalue (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(→)I am ending this discussion right here, right now. Your comments are borderline homophobic and are not acceptable. Nothing in the section will be changed whether you like it or not. Who the fuck are you to comment on what another community does or not? I can clearly see that through the pretext of using this section you are continuously accusing a community. I advice you to stop your comments alltogether. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, cuss away, if it makes you feel good. Do your worst. It's kinda exciting. DinDraithou (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be really bothered by the gay thing, I think the article is well managed, the whole homosexual subject is written in the right place and in the right quantity. The woman is considered a rising gay icon, so instead of putting it in a separate article like Madonna or Judy Garland it was squeezed in her pubic image section to give the reader an idea of her views on sexuality, which has become a vital aspect of any pop star today, and as a straight fan I completely agree with how the article is written.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to voice that she is in fact a gay icon as claimed in the article. The article references many verifiable sources and the consensus amongst the editors here seems to be leaving the article as is. If you think the section on her attribution to gays as her success point is too long maybe we can make a separate subsection under the same article.Timestep (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It just goes on and on, like that's what she's all about. Things look the way they look because they've latched on to her. This is what communities like that do and their behavior is entirely predictable, because it makes them feel powerful. - As a gay person, I do frankly find these comments to have an undercurrent of homophobia behind them. I would advise DinDraithou that his/her personal views should be left outside, if he/she wishes to consider articles in a objective manner. — R2 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling I'm the only genuinely straight, and therefore objective person in this thread. Obviously the gays feel like they own Gaga. But she did this to herself. In any case it would clearly be a waste of my time to attempt to reduce that paragraph to a proper size. So I give up. Feel victorious. The lady is yours again. DinDraithou (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Please leave. Bye bye. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Leaving I won't be. At this moment I am still enamored with her. I'm still right here. DinDraithou (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think DinDraithou's main concern is the length of paragraph. I agree that the paragraph is long; the direct speeches take up space. Removing her direct speeches and replacing them with a concise summary would make the paragraph shorter.  Davtra  (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be shortened as we don't need every single statement that she has released about the gay community. Madonna, Britney Spears, and Christina Aguilera are HUGE gay icons, too, yet they do not have giant paragraph about them as a gay icon and Christina is even a bisexual too. I speak as an OPEN MINDED straight fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Look seriously, Gaga is a gay icon because she is a proud supporter of the gay community (which is good) and gays everywhere love her. I personally am a straight fan of hers and believe it is wonderful of her to do that. It seems for some reason that Din Draithou is offended by that. Gaga does not prefer the gays over any other orientation, she just wants to promote equal rights for everyone :). When did Gaga ever say she hated straight people? I just thought I'd clear that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.18 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_9&oldid=1136890495"