Jump to content

Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Name

In The Fame Monster (Super Deluxe/Box set version) there is a poem by Lady Gaga in it. After the poem, it credits her as "Joanne Stefani Germonatta". Just want to know which way is her name Joanne Stefani or Stefani Joanne. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be Stefani Joanne, there must have been an error when printing making Joanne her first name. YZJay 09:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)

"She is also inspired by fashion"

Okay, is there... any way, whatsoever... to word that less.. lame? Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read it. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

'She is also inspired by fashion, which she has said is an essential component to her songwriting and performances.' Agreed. Goes to ponder a rewording. SunCreator (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I also found reading this akin to hitting a wall. I've adjusted the wording (and properly seperated the sales data from the 'inspiration' info). I had to fight every instinct in my being not to request citations for the statements about what inspires her.
So I'll let it be known here: Could someone who actually knows (or cares) about her please find a source for that information?
--K10wnsta (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I find no sources for that information. There is a bit in the main body of the article reads "fashion as a whole, have all been cited as inspirations as well", that cites http://www.prefixmag.com/news/lady-gaga-grace-jones-androgynous-robo-future-fash/26057/ (nothing there) and a dead link http://www.heraldsun.com.au/story/0,21985,25666920-2902,00.html, I guess the info came from the dead link? SunCreator (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A pop star who is not inspired by fashion is like a Pope who is not Catholic. The article is better off without fancrufty statements like this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The Grace Jones inspiration is OK, because it involves a direct quote from Lady Gaga.[1] The section already says "Lady Gaga has stated that she is "very into fashion" and that it is "everything" to her", so there is a need to avoid overdoing the fashion influence angle.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not about the bit in the ariticle, but the 'inspired by fashion' part in the WP:LEAD, that (appears) is not referenced in the article. SunCreator (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In the Times cite [2], Lady Gaga says “I’m very into fashion — I channel Versace in everything I do. Donatella is my muse in so many ways: she’s iconic and powerful, yet people throw darts at her. She’s definitely provocative, and I channel that more so than anything else.” This seems to cover the fashion statement in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, whoever edited it - thank you. I think it's an improvement. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

mentor or teacher?

Is Dan Lawrence her mentor or teacher?YZJay 09:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)

Take your pick, this interview with Lady Gaga gives both. There is not a great deal of difference between the two words.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Some backround information

Lady Gaga, who's real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, prefers to be called just Gaga. She thinks that Lady is too formal (considering the fact SHE makes her own name). She was born on March 28th, 1986. She is a Jewish Blonde (not a Brunette for those who thinks she is). Lady Gaga has a "thing" for the crazy styles. At the Grammy's of '10, she would've been ranked an "A". They loved the "Out of This World" dress, but didn't like the exaggerating make-up or heel-less shoes. Her following tours: "The Fame Ball Tour" and "The Monster Ball Tour" Please update this whenever you wish! 69.138.69.0 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Jasmine D.

Can you explain what exactly do you mean by these statements? Its not clear. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitter?

Does she have a twitter acccount? 86.140.128.200 (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at http://twitter.com/lADYgAGA . Twitter links are WP:ELNO. Stephen Fry gives his Twitter page in the external links section because it has picked up considerable coverage in the mainstream media. Ashton Kutcher does not. At the time of writing, Lady Gaga issued her last tweet an hour ago.[3]. Does this show her with Alexander McQueen?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Its very sad that McQueen passed away. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

third album

A lot of sources say that she is ready for a 3rd album and is going to be released in late 2010, so can't we put TBA on a third album? YZJay 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid there is no considerable source saying that she will release the album. Also I believe TBA's fail WP:CRYSTAL. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Have you guys noticed that the default image size of 180px has been increased to 200px? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

simple error

it says no1 one inspiration. i can't edit it because its locked. 152.3.249.18 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! Tabercil (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Lady GaGa has most played songs in 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.140.83 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Songwriting for other artists

Lady Gaga has written songs for Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls.

On Britney Spears album Circus, Stefani Germanotta is credited for Quicksand. It is also rumoured she wrote the tracks Blur and Rock Me In.

On The Pussycat Dolls album Doll Domination, Lady Gaga is credited for Elevator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bixbarton (talk • contribs) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably did not notice, however, these info are present in the Lady Gaga discography page and further info is suitable there only. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some anon statements

Lady GaGa has realised her first album 'The Fame'by the end of 2008 and her first single 'Just Dance' Came out in december to public television and itunes. 'Poker face' Had been realsed after Her first number one 'Just Dance' In january 2009 poker face went also to number one by the end of febuary 2009. As she realsed her 3rd single 'PaParazzi' her album went to number one in the UK and 7 other country's After that 'love game' & 'eh eh - nothing else i can say' had been realsed. By the end of 2009 She came back with A brand new Album 'The Fame Monster'. And her first single went to number one in over 15country's. her 2nd single from 'The Fame Monster' is to be realsed in march 2010 'telephone' which features beyonce. After that most likly 'dance in the dark' 'speechless' or alejardo' to be realsed. All thanks to the fans. GaGa says she would be ready for her 3rd album to come out late 2010 early 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.140.83 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry of Lady Gaga

I was looking for her ancestry, and she's italian by both father and mother, AND, she has french ancestry by mother's side. Here the link: http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Lady_GaGa I also found in italian wikipedia that her italian ancestry comes from Palermo, Sicily. Here the link (in italian): http://www.livesicilia.it/2009/10/31/lady-gaga-rivelaio-e-le-mie-origini-palermitane/ I think this must be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiós09 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't evaluate the Italian article, but of the two sources on the Lady Gaga Wikia, neither mentions French ancestry. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Yes it says: Gaga was born on March 28, 1986 in New York City, New York, the eldest child of Joseph and Cynthia (née Bissett) Germanotta. She is mostly of Italian heritage with some French ancestry on her mothers side. She has a younger sister of six years, Natali. Around the age of four, Stefani started to learn piano by ear and after a while, wrote her first song called "Dollars Bills". I think you should read it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiós09 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikia article says that, but Wikia is not a reliable source. I can't find that information in either the hitquarters.com interview with RedOne or the Star-Ledger story on Gaga. Without the reference that backs up the claim in the Wikia article, we can't use it on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Gay Icon

I also think that the "gay icon" stuff must be a separate article on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiós09 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Total digital singles sold?

I am very curious about her selling 35 million digital singles WW. There is an article from november 2009 and they said that she sold 20 million digital singles. It is impossible to sell 15 million more in only 2 month and with only one new single. We all know that Artists webs normally inflate their sales. We should try to find another source for this. http://ema.mtv.co.uk/artists/lady_gaga There is a report saying that her digital sales in Us are around 18 millon. I think 17 million more around the world seems to much. Sorry for my english.--Albes29 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

-If you read that article its says "to date" as in, thats how many she sold during that time. Yes it is possible to do so, and she has done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.139.26 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

X-Factor on UK television in December 2009 it was said to be over 30 million. They didn't say just digital, so could include album sales also. By the way, I have also read that in the UK when Bad Romance was #1 with weekly sales of 75000+ that the other singles sold more in the same period. So maybe don't dismiss sales of old and uncoming songs. SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way. You "think 17 million more around the world seems to much". US doesn't sell as much music per person as elsewhere, like the UK or Japan and also the population of the US is less then half of Europe alone. So really would expect none US sales to larger then US sales. SunCreator (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if someone noted, but the current source, besides being unreliable, presents a completely different information which she back up. The most reliable and accuracy thing that I ever seen is this (more than 21.5 million units sold just in the U.S.), however, he just present the figures in the United States, but as for now, while there's no reliability to the Worldwide situtation I would vote to keep the statement with the source and the figure that I brought even if it only presents the American one. Sparks Fly 14:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on total sales claims at a number of Wikipedia articles. First let me say Paul Grein (author of the link posted by Sparks Fly immediately above) knows whereof he speaks, as he wrote a column about the same sort of thing for Billboard magazine for many years. However, there are two major problems with what may be construed from that. Firstly, he apparently did not write the title for the column being referenced (21 Million Lady Gaga Fans Can't Be Wrong) because that would suggest that each person who bought an individual, well, unit (I'll get to that next), never bought another thing from this artist. Hardly sounds like a fan. Obviously many of those sales go to the same people. (There may be millions of fans who don't purchase the music, but that's another story.)
But those are side issues to the main point: editors need to read very closely what is actually being stated by a source who would know. (When it's reprinted in a tertiary source, they've likely made the same mistake people are making here.) The Grein article states that Gaga sold over 18 million individual digital tracks, not 18 million singles or 18 million albums. All of the successive data about which single sold how much is not additional, it's splitting those 16 million digital tracks to their respective songs. The next additional data point he gives is how many actual physical album and EP sales she has had, which is 2,517,000 copies of The Fame (or Double Platinum) and 637,000 copies of The Fame Monster (or Gold). Then he adds these two groups. That's the dodgy part. Were the "individual digital tracks" all purchased individually? In other words, people often select a few cuts from the album, or a few mixes of a song. That used to be called one sale, and they may have gotten more than they actually wanted. Now they're paying less, to get only what they want, yet it's counting as more "units". So that if I pay to download three songs from a twelve-track album, I have only bought 25% of the album yet it counts as 300% of the album!
This is where I'd like to point out that Billboard exists for people who are interested in which artists are charting. Most charting artists are relatively new artists (when Michael Jackson or the Beatles have a resurgence of interest in their older material, they're not eligible for the main, featured, Hot 100 or Top Albums charts). Billboard isn't interesting or successful or impressive if new music artists aren't made to seem interesting, successful and impressive. So Billboard is, in effect, anything but a dispassionate bystander, and they are promoting the new artists nearly as much as their record labels and publishers. (They have acknowledged this in print; it is one of the reasons cited for why an older title is ineligible to re-chart on the primary charts.)
Paul Grein, then — while an expert in these matters and keyed in to all the latest developments and where to get the raw data — is helping to spin the information to seem as impressive as possible. If 25 years ago someone bought a 12" single with four remixes, it wasn't even counted as a sale of the single, it was counted as a different sort of unit. If ten years ago people bought a CD maxi single with four or five or even ten remixes, it was counted as one unit. Now if someone legally downloads five or ten remixes, they're counted as five or ten times as many "units" sold. If I download the four remixes on what is billed online as Lady Gaga's "Just Dance" Remixes EP Part 1, and then the four remixes on "Just Dance" Remixes EP Part 2, this is counted as eight units, or eight single track downloads (which some erroneously call "digital singles"). If I had purchased the 1984 equivalent, on two separate 12" vinyl records, this would not have counted as even one U.S. single sale, it would have counted as two remixes, which were not combined or conflated with singles sales. If I had purchased the 1999 equivalent, on 2 separate CD maxi singles, this would have counted as two singles (unless it were an import, in which case I strongly suspect it would have already been registered as a single sale in the other country). But again, the 2010 equivalent, via digital download, counts as eight single track downloads, or eight units.
If not for this, sales would seem much less impressive. Double platinum is impressive indeed and most artists don't get a fraction of those sales in their entire careers much less in a year and a half and for their debut alubm. But many, many other artists do, and have, and to make it seem like she's sold 18 or 21.5 or however many more millions, when the moderately informed reader is comparing that to figures of actual physical sales of artists from eight or twelve or twenty or thirty years ago (when the population was half what it is now), is tantamount to lying. The only way it is fair to cite or compare figures such as these stated in the Grein article is if you are comparing them to other artists within the past four or five years.
Finally, sometimes people more interested in promoting an artist than the record business press — like their agents and managers — will add only tangentially related items to "units" sold. Units of what? If you download a digital ringtone or callback tone, it's counted as a full unit. If the artist had one song on a film soundtrack or a charity album or a hits compilation, some might be counting that as a "unit" they credit their artist with selling. (Why not, it's equal to one individual digital track download, right?) Sometimes they count music videos that are digitally downloaded or sold on DVD or VHS. I wouldn't put it past some promoters to add things like posters or concert tickets or, in the case of musicians who act, TV or movie DVD sales. All valid exchanges of money for product identified with and giving you some experience of their artist, and so on some level a reasonable measure of that artist's commercial draw. But not a standardized measure, and not single or album sales as they are being misconstrued by editors and readers alike. After all, Albes69 — who suspected this was an erroneous figure — himself uses the phrase "digital single" when what the figure is actually for is digital single tracks.
So consider the source, be careful not to add the wrong things or the same things twice, be wary of vague words like "units" — though be sure to use those vague words and not extrapolate that to anything more specific — and realize you are being spun even by the so-called "music bible" experts. Our editorial responsibility is to read carefully, represent the exact wording of the data point, and indicate the source. We're not comparing apples to apples, and we're not comparing apples to oranges, we're comparing apples to blueberries, but we're making those blueberries seem like cantaloupes.
My suggestion as an editor? Use the raw data points in the article, not a jingoistic catchall like "units", i.e., state "In the United States alone, he has sold over 2,517,000 albums, 637,000 EPs, and 18.3 million digital songs." Abrazame (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Great summary. I really hadn't thought of billboard as promoting the new artists. Do you have reference for this being in print the Billboard article itelf could do will some menton of this. SunCreator (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

She sold 35 million worldwide...the 14 million number is the US alone...it makes sense she sold almost 5 million in the US of just dance, 4 million poker face, 3 million bad romance, and about 2 million of paparazzi and lovegame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.248.252 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New Image?

Could the image used for the page be changed, as their are newer pictures of her. This one was taken a year ago possibly more Alexshunn (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Lady Gaga is a pop star, there is a remarkably good range of copyright free images of her in the article. Any new images would need to be suitable for Wikimedia Commons, and not lifted from Google, Flickr etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy towards stage performances

I've recently read that Lady Gaga lives uses her money she earns all on her performance. Should this be added to the article? And if so, should it be under philanthropy? Or is the information too unreliable/current? --Arathun (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here are the references: Lady Gaga lives out of suitcase, Lady Gaga homeless --Arathun (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... references don't work. Search it on news.google, the article names: Lady Gaga lives out of suitcase

I guess I'm not too good at this yet :(.

--Arathun (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated above links so they do work. No '|' after external links(that's for internal), use a space instead. SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So where's the section on her being a Hermaphrodite?

I mean everyone knows it. Rumor or not that's apart of Lady's Gaga image. It's pretty bad when the web's #1 information site doesn't even reference it even once it the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.114.135 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2008–present: The Fame and The Fame Monster section mentions this, but it uses the word intersexual, which is the preferred modern term.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

14 million?

Who put this? This might be her sales for singles in the US alone but there are many sources saying that it is well over 30 million, if not 40 million for worldwide. Also, the eight million albums is just for The Fame, it is well over 10 million if the fame monster is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.105.10 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Without references to prove it then it will get reverted back to a potentially out of date source that we do have. SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017944757?Lady%20Gaga%20Sells%20Over%2010%20Million%20Copies%20Worldwide%20Of

Here this is to prove the album part that it is 10 million just for the Fame. This doesn't even include the Fame Monster!!!


http://www.todayonline.com/Plus/EDC100218-0000046/Playing-the-fame-game

35 million singles. The 14 million is just for the U.S., clearly, so why would it say worldwide?


There are an endless number of sources out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.105.10 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The usual problem with citing record sales is not that there are too few sources but too many, which are often contradictory. This has been an ongoing problem at Michael Jackson, with arguments about whether he sold more records than Elvis Presley. This is almost impossible to prove, because record sales in the millions are usually estimates and can be challenged on a number of grounds, including WP:SPS by the record company. See also [4] for a good discussion of the problems this issue can cause.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It just goes to show how right your are "IanMacM", I have looked over this IP's sources, and it seems that they actually contradict each other. While one source says 10 million albums, the other says 8 million. Just goes to show the magnitude of the problem.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. The new 10 million worldwide figure has only been anounced in the last week, hence any publicaiton before that could only state the previously announced 8 million figure. You have to bear in mind that sales still continue and expect to see a revised figure in future months as for example The Fame album is the #1 seller in the UK this week. SunCreator (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-instated semi-protection

I have re-instated semi-protection to this article, as since the last protection expired a few hours ago, there's been heavy vandalism. If anyone has any objections to this, let me know. Since this is a BLP (and some of the vandalism was nasty), I felt it necessary to protect it. Thanks. Acalamari 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks that you protected it. Needs indefinite semi, the way the vandalism is going on. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Album sold ...

Sorry 'im new in wikipedia but It's official Lady Gaga has sold 10 milion + one milion albums worldwide and so I think it's necessari to change 8 milion to over eleven milions ok? AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not official. All you have is Lady Gaga's word and various webpages quoting this. See WP:SPS. Nymf hideliho! 18:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know but I think that the fame has been certified 3x platinum by the RIAA and so is one milion more than 9.5 you've said first ... I think is better put 9 milion copies AriandaGAGA (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Arianda GAGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriandaGAGA (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, how many of the third million of US copies were in the eight million figure? We can't engage in that sort of synthesis with reported sales figures; that sort of original research is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok ... thanks ... AriandaGAGA (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} Lady Gaga article: Her debut album 'The Fame' has sold over 10 million and has been certified diamond Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://musicfascination.com/2010/02/27/lady-gaga%E2%80%99s-debut-album-certified-diamond/ Kazozh5 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)moved from user talk page by Thesevenseas (talk · contribs) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This uses Twitter, which is a self published source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Haus of GaGa

I just saw that another Haus of GaGa page has been created, and it seems to be ignored. 222.79.158.77 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC

why is it that every haus of gaga page gets deleted. 117.24.194.186 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

She never went to the Juilliard audition

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

Association with Beyonce

Hello. Although I'm not a big fan of Dance music, I thought that Lady Gaga has been associated with Beyonce for Video Phone, so I can't find why this is not correct in order to erase this. Please inform me if I'm mistaken. Thank you very much, --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

The "associated acts" field is not supposed to be used for artists who did one or two collaborations together, however, it could be worthy of a mention in the article. I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable of the subject, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in the article for Beyonce is the name of Lady Gaga in the associated acts. --Patriot8790 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. I'm not an expert on the subject, so it would be best to wait for someone who is. However, I can't see any problems mentioning it in the article if it isn't already. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"Associated acts" and "Genre" often cause infobox arguments. Overall, Beyoncé is not an associated act of Lady Gaga.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Simple reason. ASsociated acts are people who have been playing for a long time with the main artist, in this case Lady Starlight and Space Cowboy. No one else is even worthy of mention at all. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial thingamabobs

Legolas, you reverted me, which I'm fine with- I won't edit war with you and I don't doubt you know the article better than I do, but I just wonder if these "tabloidy" things might be worth a mention if they're documented in decent sources? to give an example, Lily Cole has done nude appearances, but they are well documented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

'I made Lady GaGa' - Wendy Starland

I found this intresting and may help with GAGA's early days. Source (from the mirror which is relible enough)- http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/03/13/i-made-lady-gaga-the-girl-who-changed-stefani-germanotta-s-life-with-a-phone-call-115875-22107298/

EXTRAXT Below:

Triple Brit Award winner GaGa wrote: “I will proclaim my loyalty and eternal thanks to the incredible Wendy Starland for discovering me. Wendy Starland changed my life. Wendy was the angel that fulfilled my promise to my father one year before, on my 19th birthday.

“Without Wendy’s remarkable ears, hearing through my rough-around-the-edges college band, the eyes to see through 15 pounds I would lose over the next three months, and the heart to reveal to me one of her most credible contacts, I may never have become Lady GaGa.

Triple Brit Award winner GaGa wrote: “I will proclaim my loyalty and eternal thanks to the incredible Wendy Starland for discovering me. Wendy Starland changed my life. Wendy was the angel that fulfilled my promise to my father one year before, on my 19th birthday.

“Without Wendy’s remarkable ears, hearing through my rough-around-the-edges college band, the eyes to see through 15 pounds I would lose over the next three months, and the heart to reveal to me one of her most credible contacts, I may never have become Lady GaGa.

Eyeliner and Cigarettes(User/Talk/Sign) 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Intersex rumor addressed in new Telephone video

"I knew she didn't have a dick!" -Prison guard stripping Gaga. Nothing formal or conventional to address a rumor, still she addressed it. I was thinking this should be in the article somewhere? Tommy2010 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

About where in the video does this come up? It might be good to mention, from the angle of her laughing off the rumour. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Telephone is on YouTube/Vevo at [5] Lady Gaga is led into a prison cell at the start of the video. She is locked into the cell, and stripped down to a pair of fishnet stockings. She climbs up the bars of the cell. As two of the guards are walking away, one of them comments at 1:10 "I told you she didn't have a dick". This the clearest reference yet to the ongoing "story" about Lady Gaga's endowment, and is mentioned in Telephone (song). Not sure if it should be mentioned in the main article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
She says flat out that she isn't intersexual in the Barbara Walters' interview. I don't think any further coverage is necessary. Nymf hideliho! 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, good point. Ha, my bad. Tommy2010 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It is definitely worthy of a mention in the song article, but not in her biography, especially given the aforementioned interview. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bio

The bio should be updated for her new single Telephone --Arathun (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. It is unlikely that we will stop the debate about Lady Gaga's membership of the male/female club, but the main article is already clear on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --Arathun (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New picture

Can't we place a new picture in the infobox. 222.79.158.77 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could this picture work? YZJay 13:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)
Any new image for the infobox would need to be copyright free, of good technical quality and show Lady Gaga's face clearly. The current image meets all of these requirements. Since this is a high profile article, any proposed change to the infobox image should be discussed on the talk page to establish a consensus, rather than risking edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
would Gaga Bad Romance.jpg work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.24.194.186 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Gaga_Bad_Romance.jpg would need cropping to remove the blue background. Personally, I still prefer the current image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposed picture above really isn't a valid replacement. It's blurry, distorted and you can barely make out her face. Nymf hideliho! 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

what about 1264983243 lady-gaga-blog.jpg? Her face is clear and it's not blurry. 117.24.194.186 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is that on WP or Commons? If so, could you link it please. I can't find that filename in search, but it could just be me. File links need to be [[:File:Example-serious.jpg]] which produces File:Example-serious.jpg. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That image should be speedily deleted. A blatant copyvio. Gaga Bad Romance.jpg seems like a valid choice, if someone could just sharpen it a little. I disagree with Nymf that "blurry, distorted and you can barely make out her face". Her face is more visible in this one than the curtrent picture. The current pic is so bad that it cannot even point out that it is Gaga or some one else. --Legolas (talk2me) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1264983243 lady-gaga-blog.jpg was uploaded today. Not bad, but it gives the source as usmagazine.com. Is this really copyright free?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio much? --Legolas (talk2me) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to come from here. Almost certainly unsuitable per WP:NFCC, attribution given to Getty Images.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well its most certainly a speedy delete, let the Dutch admins sort it. Meanwhile, I'm trying to get teh copyright for some images from the Monster Ball UK, there at flickr. Quite good. --Legolas (talk2me) 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No matter what, the current image needs to be replaced.it shows lady gaga on 2008, on that time her face was completely different from now.its either the Bad romance picture or the Grammy red carpet picture. 117.24.194.186 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, no. It's not even a year old. The infobox image is meant to depict the subject of the article, which this one does just fine. If it's going to be replaced, it needs to be an improvement. Nymf hideliho! 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless.jpg. I uploaded the image to commons and added it in the infobox of the article. At present the image is being modified at Graphics lab of Wikipedia, hence donot revert it. Please be patient as teh sharpness of the image is being modified. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

this new pic looks great!!! i don't know how much gaphics lab can help, but it sure did help the previous image. it was pathetic as hell, and they made it so damn good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.217.96 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:GL has done amazing job and edited the later file to File:Gaga-monster-ball-uk-speechless-re.jpg. Its sharp and good now to be utilized as the main image, let's see what they do with the other one. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2008-present section

Isn't this section just going on and on, an enormous one? We can easily cut down the detailed explanations of all her performances and single chart achievements which are more suitable for the album/singles pages. Thoughts? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. Just the important information regarding her singles/albums should go on her biography, and the detailed explanations should be on her singles pages. But that means we will have to constantly change EVERY single page she has, which can be a task because of "wars" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.60 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Influences of Lady Gaga's are

Yoko Ono, Elvis, David Bowie, Morrissey, Queen, Robert Smith, Robert Plant, Freddy Mercury, Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Rod Stewart, Thomas Dolby, Depeche Mode, The Faint, Radiohead, Beck, Franz Ferdinand, The Cure, Nine Inch Nails, Grace Slick & Jefferson Airplane, Queen, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Nirvana, Talking Heads,The Scissor Sisters, The Dresden Dolls, Mika, She Wants Revenge, Janis Joplin, Jenny Lewis, Joy Division, New Order, The Killers, Justin Warfield, Chuck Berry, BuckCherry, Billy Idol, White Stripes, Strokes, Blondie, Pat Benatar, Rilo Kiley, Elton John, Jerry-Lee Lewis, John Lennon, The Beatles. Drag queens in general. Jimmy Choo. Hot Groupie chicks. Hairspray *not the musical. Black Eyeliner. Strippers. Sequins. D-I-S-C-O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonroseisihot (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At this rate it would be quicker to name who did not influence Lady Gaga. Some sourcing would be needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You want a source, here you go:http://www.myspace.com/ladygaga —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaGalover13 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, you're quite right, the list above is word for word the same as the one on Lady Gaga's MySpace profile.[6] Usually, this would be seen as a self published source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhhhhhh! so does that mean it can't go in the article? (I'm kinda new to this whole wikipedia thing.)

Rob Fusari's lawsuit

Today, news broke that Gaga's former boyfriend and collaborator Rob Fusari was suing her for $30 million. [7] This seems fairly notable and a pretty big turn of events (he didn't seem to harbor any ill will towards her in earlier interviews), but I'm unsure how to integrate it into the article... perhaps someone else could help? The Mach Turtle (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of mainstream media coverage this is picking up today, eg here, here, it should definitely be in the article. Only time will tell what becomes of it, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid music

Can anyeone tell me what is "mermaid Music". a website say's it's owned by lady gaga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.79.159.43 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid Music LLC is Lady Gaga's production company. Robert Fusari's lawsuit (see above) is against Mermaid Music.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Red and Blue (EP) - Stefani Germanotta

I believe that this article should Briefly include some information on "Red and Blue (EP)", originally released befor the artist went by the tittle: "Lady GaGa"; and the unofficial re-release on i-tunes last year. http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Red_and_Blue_(EP) GaGalover13 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Albums sold?

Didn't she sell 10 million albums and become the 1st artist since Amy Winehouse to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.144.123 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Did she sell 10 million albums? Maybe. The problem is verifying the statement, since nobody other than Gaga herself has made the statement. Is she the first artist since Winehouse to do it? I haven't seen that mentioned in any source, secondary or primary. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Well if you add up all the sales thresholds from the album certifications it all adds up to 10 million, and yes the last album to sell that amount was from Winehouse.

--72.91.144.123 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Article becoming too large? No

I have a concern, this article is filling up rather fast. With extremely important things like being sued, the hermaphodite rumour, the gay activist/speaking at HRC dinner, polaroid deal etc. that are non music related, she has done so much in just under 2 years. Now all of this needs to be included of course and should be, and there will continue to be more and more everyweek with her, like how this week Telephone reached number one in the UK and became her 6th Pop 100 #1 tied for first with Beyonce, Mariah etc. Once this gets to be too much, what happens?? I was just looking at the article for The Beatles and there seems to be articles upon articles about them. Would the same thing happen with Gaga, or would information be deleted for her (please be the former)? Because this is bound to happen at the rate she is making article worthy news. If so, what would possible articles about her be that aren't "Lady Gaga" would there be and would they be easy to access to? Certain wikipedia articles, such as lists, are great but hard to find for a normal web browser. Surely it's too early for some of these questions to be asked but if possible it would be really interesting to be insightful about it this early on, considering how important she has become/has yet to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.105.10 (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. The article is quite a mess, thanks to the uber fans adding any unworthy pile of shit news. I cleaned about 3K worth of material just now. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is currently 55 kilobytes long and does not have WP:SIZE issues, which usually applies to articles over 100 kilobytes. The ongoing problem is fancruft and WP:RECENTISM, which needs to be removed for a good article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
That's my point. Gaga hasnot even been around for 2 full years and the article screams loudly of UNDUE. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd say there are bits of information, especially in the 2008-present section that will need drastically trimming. It's good to be comprehensive, but just because the media see fit to report it, doesn't mean we should include all the minutest detail on her, especially the stuff that doesn't directly pertain to her notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New approach needed

The state of this article is disappointing. Instead of even making a mere mention of several revolutionary career achievements linked to album success, music reception, innovations in music videos or whatever, the digital experience or her revolutionary business affairs in the music industry - all this more analytical stuff is kept for the album / single pages. At the end of the day, the bio page is left with useless/random commentaries related to her style and influences. For instance, the music style and influences section is laced with random quotes pulled from the popular press, some of which don't really add any particular value or direction to the article. This article needs a rework from top-to-bottom. It seems like when actual achievements are added, they are removed in the name of fancrut or keeping things comprehensive. On the other hard, the uncoordinated, and most often, useless details like the random journalist quotes rest unchanged from the moment they are inserted. If things are to change, there must be an accommodation for new editors to come in and add notable career achievements as they develop. Gaga is in the press 24/7, and while I'm all for wiki comprehensiveness, it would be hard to argue that at least a minority of these issues or themes do not merit a passage on the bio page, over other things we have now like four lines dedicated to the 2008 Gaga/Aguilera confrontation. Imperatore (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Most wiewed artist of all time ...

http://www.dose.ca/Lady+Gaga+Proves+Unavoidable+Sets+Video+Record/2725416/story.html ... i belive we must add this article http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/lady-gaga-beats-twilight-saga-2010032643693 http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarticlesynopsfullart.aspx?csid1=115&csid2=844&fid1=45333 http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarticlesynopsfullart.aspx?csid1=115&csid2=844&fid1=45333 AriandaGAGA (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

The hermaphrodite thing needs to be addressed (--> she isnt)

Look, it's taken on a life of it's own when you have *Barbra Walters* asking Gaga on National TV in an interview, not only that but in a FREAKIN AD for the aforementioned interview, if she's a hermaphrodite. Okay, that is pretty huge and people go to this site for information, so it should get a passing mention with how she's been asked and how she has disproved it. Continuing to flat-out ignore it is irresponsible in people's search for enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.187.63 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Gaga was one of the most viewed articles on wiki in 2009, and I get the feeling at least some of those people were looking for answers to this. If you're talking about not posting rumours, I point to the Tom Cruise article that points out how homosexuality rumours circulated for him and how he sued people over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.187.63 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to a news story documenting the interview? If it's gotten to the level that newspapers (and not E! or TMZ or the like) are writing about Walters asking her about it, then yes, it may be time to revisit whether it's encyclopedic. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually,a quick look at the references from this article shows that it already cites supposedly non-encyclopedic sources "E! online" and "PopMatters.com" for other matters not related to Lady Gaga's penis rumors. It doesn't seem right that such sites are OK to use so long as certain fans and apologists don't find the material offensive, and then rejected if they do. 86.156.245.248 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You can listen to the full interview here though the only rumor mentioned is the speculation on her sexual orientation. The only publication which talked on the subject is a small publication:Much has been speculated about the singer, including the rumor that she is a hermaphrodite and bisexual. Gaga confirmed the latter during the "10 Most Fascinating People" interview, though she appeared visibly flustered when Walters asked her if she had engaged in lesbian sex. The willingness to go into open court and sue someone for monetary damages, by the way, is quite different from a rumor simply existing, it implies a severe impact on the individual. The same thing happened to Liberace. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But is she really a hermaphrodite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it cannot be proven that she is, the article needs to read that she is not—or just omit the subject entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe put in that there is some speculation but it is unsure? I tried looking at Wikipedia to see if I could find out... It might make some people less confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that type of speculation isn't allowed in a WP:BLP. See the warning at the top of this page that states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." To put that type of info in any BLP requires iron-clad sources that spend around 0% of their time "speculating" (good luck finding that source since they all spend lots of time doing that these days). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What's "unfortunate" about this policy? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate for anyone looking to Wikipedia for an answer to questions of this type. Yes, we are all aware that this is a feature and not a bug. - De Guerre (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

She never confirmed it, so leave it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diforeverf (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

She did confirm it in an interview in Australia that she is not, nor never was, a hemaphrodite. It was posted earlier in the article, but I'm not sure if it's still there. Here's the link:
http://www.mtv.com.au/news/e660034f-gaga-talks-penis-rumours/ Esprix (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If the issue is settled, mentioning it happened isn't speculation. We can simply say rumors existed about her sexuality but they were denied. As true as it gets. --uKER (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The interesting thing about the above link is that she doesn't actually deny that she has a penis, Instead, when asked a direct question about it, she uses almost evasive language, claiming that her "vagina is offended" and that the subject is "too low brow for me to even discuss" and that she would "rather talk about my fans and my music than a silly rumour". A simple "no" would have sufficed...but was not forthcoming. Does anyone have citations for a clear denial of the penis? (86.148.109.94 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
Yes, I believe she cleary denied this when she talks about it in a Noisevox interview that was published on YouTube September 17, 2009. In part 5 of 5 of the interview about 29 seconds in she states "I'm still latching on to the fact that people think I'm sexy because this is like a new thing for me... because for the first year of my career everybody called me a tranny robot and thought I had a little penis." When the interviewer points out that in another interview she did say she had a "donkey dick," she acknowledges that she did say that. She refers to the public's reaction of her at first as a "sort of weird place" and now "regular guys" think she's sexy. I hope this helps and because it's a question that many interviewers ask her over and over, it probably should be addressed. I am one who went to Wikipedia to see if that rumor could be dispelled but I had a really hard time finding that information, especially since in several interviews and a concert, she seemingly admitted that she did to those who did not pick up on her sarchasm. I can find those videos if needed.--Swishertx (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a reasonable approach: to state that there was rumour of a penis but she has disavowed it. If there are no objections forthcoming, I will add this into the article shortly. I understand that her success and popularity in 2009 is largely attributable to this rumour, but of course this is a difficult thing to prove and even harder to find a reputable source to cite. If anyone has one please post it here. 86.156.245.248 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
One can only laugh at the idea that to become an internatiotal superstar all one has do is create some rumours of sexuality. This arcticle has to apply wp:blp. SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If anything is libelous it is not suggesting she is a hermaphrodite, it is suggesting that this is the sole cause of her success. But I definitely feel it deserves mentioning that the rumours exist(ed), but also clearly state that she has denied them since. And, to be pedantic, this is not a case of her sexuality, but of her sex (gender). 145.94.78.201 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it completely denied in a direct way?--Diforeverf (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is five messages above yours. --uKER (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"It’s honestly too low brow for me to even discuss." I think the same should apply to the Wikipedia article, per the Richard Gere precedent. Stupid rumours have no place in BLPs. Fences&Windows 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
But this time it's rather a brilliant marketing gag than a stupid rumor, and there is no reason to regard it as irrelevant. --KnightMove (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. Michael Jacksons rumours, the ones he himself invented to fuel his popularity, are addressed. Why not one that for all possibilities is quite likely to be true? In fact the number one reason behind the refuting of pictures, video, her previous own statements she removed from her blog (ignoring that you can't delete something from the internet) are somehow outweighed because "she says so". If any POV is happening it's that biggest, and seemingly ONLY, source those against it have are that she and her manager have denied it. Which isn't allowed as disputation regardless. On any articles. In fact self-proclamation as fact from the person/people the article is ABOUT is specifically disallowed here on Wikipedia. 60.230.198.186 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

That thread has since been archived (there's not much there, really): Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive78#Rumour_about_Lady_Gaga 66.58.210.21 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Snopes is a reliable source or not, but they have a page about this: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/ladygaga.asp --137.227.96.21 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


The footage of her on MTV's Boiling Points (well before she was Lady Gaga) should pretty effectively put this rumor to rest. She looks like a run-of-the-mill, full-of-herself, 20 year-old girl with a big schnoz. Since her success, she may very well have had work done to enhance her androgynous liking, but to fuel such a completely unwarranted, unfounded, and absurd rumor on Wikipedia would be intellectually irresponsible.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources then it should be addressed regardless of what her fans want. Gune (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be included, in her new video telephone she even plays on the claims, showing us she hasn't got one. sources: 1 2 3 4 5 ... there are plenty more on the web too. Some sources from the time: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There are so more on the web too, I just did a quick search. So why isn't it on there if she has adressed this herself, in the video. Why? This is not a fansite. Aren't they reliable sources? It only needs one line about the rumour, the denial, the video... finished.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It already is included. See the last paragraph of the "2008 - present" section. Nymf hideliho! 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions the claim, but uses the word intersexual. This is a non-story, but needs to be addressed because of the amount of coverage that it has received in the media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think more coverage is needed, or are we just discussing whether to link to Intersexuality, Intersexuality#Hermaphrodite, or Hermaphrodite? The last article mentions that intersex is the preferred current term, so I agree with the current linking to intersexuality (and I feel there is enough coverage currently). —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumours need to be adressed and should be kept in the article, and put in a Rumours/Controversies section, don't matter if it has been dismissed by her or her managers or whoever Colette89 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_7&oldid=1158884556"