Talk:Born This Way (song)/Archive 1

sells
Born this Way has sold more than 1 million copies in us Lady Gaga’s newest release “Born This Way” has scored a third week at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 with 286,000 digital downloads and over 100 million audience impressions. Since its debut last month, the single has sold more than 1,240,000 copies in the U.S. alone, becoming the fastest-selling track of 2011 http://gagadaily.com/2011/03/born-this-way-goes-platinum-spends-third-week-atop-billboard-hot-100/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.250.197.62 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

leave page
plz leave this page the way it is I will update it regularly
 * No, it's not notable at this time. – anemone projectors – 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * will I create it next week as it comes out Sunday 13 February —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.154.60 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be created when it's charted (or notable for some other reason), not when it's released. – anemone projectors – 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its notability is its level of hype even pre-release! It's getting a Glee episode, it had an Ellen parody, it's talked about all over the news as if it were an upcoming film by a good director (blech).~ZytheTalk to me! 14:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
I don't want to just redirect the page with no discussion. It is not notable per WP:NSONGS or even hardly WP:GNG. Choose redirect or keep below and why. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point, seeing that the song is being released next week, as well as radio adds. This will only lead to further work on our part, as after 2/13 it will invariably be created. If, this would have been released in May or April, I would have personally redirected it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * True. I have seen "future notability" win many AfD discussions. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was page blanking vandalism and I have undone. The anon has a long history of vandalism so I blocked. I can't understand how anyone that can say that this isn't notable with VERY reliable sources like MTV being cited from articles directly talking about this song and its controversial video. It's not like there's a chance that this article will ever be deleted in a deletion discussion.  Royal broil  05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Royalbroil, truly appreciated. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Single Cover Art
The official single artwork has been released by Lady Gaga via Twitter, but I'm not sure how to upload it without violating a rule or term. Can someone help me out with this? Jpagan09 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Date
The date for the uk release is it friday the 11th or saturday the 13th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom54430 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

iTunes Release
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/will-next-week-bring-the-billboard-hot-100-1005030472.story

This says that Born will be released on the 11th three hours after radio add. Should it be add ed to release history? Microwave09 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to the release history but perhaps to the background section? &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  05:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we add that the song broke the itunes record? It was the fastest to number one... breaking Taylor Swift's "Mine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLittleMonster (talk • contribs) 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, it also is the first single to go #1 on all 23 itunes stores. although i cannot actually find an official source for this, although there have been print screens of each store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.160.40 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.musikmarkt.de/Aktuell/News/News/Lady-Gaga-knackt-internationale-iTunes-Charts-Samstag-12.-Februar-2011

Der Track stand in 22 Ländern - unter anderem in den USA, Japan, Deutschland, Frankreich sowie in Skandinavien - wenige Stunden nach dem digitalen Release an der Spitze der iTunes-Charts. Damit hat Lady Gaga in den USA erneut einen Rekord aufgestellt: "Born This Way" ist die am schnellsten verkaufte Nummer-eins-Single in der bisherigen Geschichte von iTunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.108.218 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
Reviews have been amazing. Rolling Stone gave the song 4 stars, saying that it is an instant-classic club http://www.rollingstone.com/music/songreviews/born-this-way-20110211

Mtv gave a possitive review as well, saying "Fun, empowering and over-the-top. Those are the first adjectives that come to mind upon hearing Lady Gaga's "Born This Way." Between Gaga's empowering lyrics and the music's heavy club influences, the song is set to appease her fans and pop lovers..." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1657726/lady-gaga-born-this-way.jhtml --West231 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link West231. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why "initial reviews"???? Almost every major magazine gave it a positive review (Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Billboard..etc.) I think we should omit "initial"... shouldn't we?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's WP:RECENTISM. The song hasn't been out one day. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that digital spy actually gave the song five stars (out of five). In the same way the article mentions the four stars given by Rolling Stone magazine, this five star critics shoud be mentioned. Look at the reference.West231 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, great reviews continue to come. This time is Billboard Magazine that gives props to Born This Way: http://www.billboard.com/#/news/single-review-lady-gaga-born-this-way-1005032432.story --West231 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another great review from NYMAG http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/02/lady_gaga_stops_being_smart_on.html, the reception by critics it's amazing. --West231 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Forbes gave the song a great review saying "For real, Born This Way had better be the biggest, best anthem every written—it follows the recipe precisely. An anthem that speaks to every person on the planet..." http://blogs.forbes.com/meghancasserly/2011/02/11/lady-gagas-born-this-way-gay-anthems-and-girl-power/ --West231 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope Wikipedia includes all this reviews in the respective section. If a song deserves credit, credit should be given.--West231 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please can we mention more reviews... like Forbes for instance?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have changes the reviews section, early reviews have been almost all positive, 8 out of 10 have been positive, with only 2 reviews being negative. That is not mixed. not when the 80% of the reviews are positive. --StephenG (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Who keeps changing the reviews section. Reviews are all positive (two exceptions out of 12) that is not mixed, that is POSITIVE! --StephenG (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This line bothers me as well. Initial revies haven't been positive. There were clearly MIXED! There's a lot, I mean A LOT, of negative reviews towards the song both by critics and fans. By saying reviews were positive, the articles looks very biased. 187.37.178.55 (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

People, critical reception has been positive... fans' INITIAL was negative but "after a few more listens" it grew on them while the public's reception has been postitive... and 80% of the critics gave it a positive review. So overall positive I think.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It's pretty obvious the overall reaction was mixed. You guys love Gaga, I get that, but let's not be biased here.187.37.178.60 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's be objective, almost every major music magazine gave the song a positive review. This section can't say mixed. If you cout every positive reliable review and compare them with the "negative" the positives win by A LOT. The major critic here, is that the song resembles Madonna's Express Yourself (or should I say "Respect Yourself" by the Staple Singers? wich came before Madonna's) There's no critics in terms of production or vocal performance of the song. So let's be real, we can't deny that the receptions have been generally positive.--West231 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TIME MAGAZINE considers it MIXED: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/11/does-lady-gagas-born-this-way-rip-off-madonna-who-cares/ 187.37.178.60 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything you have said West has sounded extremely biased. Also, people have been leaving out many negative reviews in favor for positive reviews from less reliable sites. Mixed to positive should best fit, since a slight majority is positive, compared to the negatives/mixed. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In response of the Express Yourself comparissons
In response to the comparissons some people have made, Rolling Stone Magazine went to say that even Express Yourself is nothing more than "just Madonna’s knock-off of the Staple Singers’ "Respect Yourself."". The article even say that Born This Way is a better song than Express Yourself. Reference: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blogs/pop-life/lady-gagas-born-this-way-much-better-than-express-yourself-20110211 --West231 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Every other mainstream song had it mentioned in their articles if they sound similar to another song. I know it's Lady Gaga, but we shouldn't make even more special exceptions for her. At the end of the day, it's a song, and a lot of people think they're similar. Even the likes of Rolling Stone Magazine have had to comment on it. It's very notable. Ridin' Solo by Jason Derulo sounds like Bittersweet Symphony, and that is mentioned on the article, despite the fact that Bittersweet Syphony sounds like The Last Time by the Rolling Stones.

Infact, if we make this exception for Lady Gaga, we'd have to go and edit the articles of most other RnB and hip hop songs too, to keep it consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.239.92 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a citation for this or is it just somebody's humble opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.80.86 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Audio sample
The audio sample had been removed with an edit summary that stated that WP:NFCC required a composition section. The page does not, but requires contextual significance. If additional discussion is necessary, the file should be nominated for a deletion discussion. Hekerui (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Single Breaking Records.
Perez Hilton- Yes, I know, not a reliable source- reported that within 5 hours of the single being released it has already debuted at #1 on itunes in over 20 countries and is breaking Itunes records. This is worth mentioning because there's a screen shot that proves it. http://perezhilton.com/2011-02-11-born-this-way-number-one-in-20-countries-on-itunes-lady-gaga/?feat=yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.22.141 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, it's true, but we need to wait a reliable source.--NicolásTM (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well.. it's perez and Gaga daily and itunes itself.... anything more reliable?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated, all of them are unreliable untill a reliable third party source reports on it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MTV UK has reported that it has gone to number 1 in 21 countries. Should it be added? I'm not sure what the exact protocol here is for reliable third party sources, or if MTV counts as one. --68.32.218.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

Fans' reactions
No, it is not positive, it is MIXED. Let's not act like the comparisons to "Express Yourself" were positive, in fact most of the comparisons say this song is a ripoff of "Express Yourself"! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in making Gaga look bad, but this article doesn't very accurately reflect the public's TRUE reaction to this song. Lots of people love it of course, but a lot of her own fans are complaining about how underwhelming this song is! Get it right, Wikipedia! 24.189.87.160 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If they noted that it sounded like Express Yourself, that is not positive, excluding Rolling Stone. On top of that, Spin and Yahoo music criticized the song, saying she didn't spend much time writing it and calling it cheesy. The Guardian's review is something I wouldn't exactly call positive either. It should be mixed. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The song has barely been out a day. Cool down and wait for sources to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.219 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Sources are already there. Sounds like you just don't want to see any dirt on the song. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  13:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception by both the public and the critics has been positive.... fans initial reception to the song were mixed to positive as of today with most of them claiming they didn't like it at first but it "grew on them" once they've heard it more than one time. Although the public seemed to love it more than the fans and the song was critically acclaimed... so overall it WAS positive. We can't write "mixed" based only on the fans' early reviews. Get my point?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Reception section is about music critics, wich is positive in the majority of them. Even if the public reaction was counted, there's no doubt that the reception has been amazing. The song is #1 in EVERY itunes chart in the world, holds the record for fastest climb to #1 in the US iTunes(only 3 hours) and broke Britney Spears record for monst spins in the first day by almost triplicate what Britney did a month ago. All of this within the first 24 hours.--West231 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not number one in every chart as it is only number one in twenty three when there are 50+ iTunes. Also, no source has yet to confirm that it broke HIAM's record for most spins. Many websites are instead reporting that the airplay gimmick was just to boost public opinion. -- ĈÞЯİŒ   1ооо  19:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is number one in all the MAJOR markets... and yes it it did break HIAM for most spins just google it, you just choose not to believe according to mentioned sites. Please if you're a hater put the hate aside. I'm a fan but I state things from a neutral point of view.... and critical reception was mostly positive.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no, all I see is fansites and blogs. I guess you're knew, so why don't you read WP:RS. And yes, I hate Lady GaGa, that's why I helped promote The Fame Monster to GA status. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The official news WILL COME. And when they come I'll be posting the links here, you should take that as a fact. Gaga did break these records, whether you like it or not. And yes, Gaga is #1 in all major markets, and guess what? You can check that instantly, simply look at the charts now! Just wait the official news, they'll come! =)--West231 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, that needs to be removed. See WP:BADCHARTS and that source doesn't look very reliable. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This line bothers me as well. Initial revies haven't been positive. There were clearly MIXED! There's a lot, I mean A LOT, of negative reviews towards the song both by critics and fans. By saying reviews were positive, the articles looks very biased. 187.37.178.55 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

True, initial reactions by fans were mixed...but now, every fan seems to love the song, so the reception is POSITIVE in general. I remember when Bad Romance came out, every one was saying that the song was crap...and now it is one of the most (if not the most) emblematic song og Gaga's repertoire.--West231 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PEOPLE: Isn't the reception section solely for reviews by (more or less professional) music critics from prestigious/reliable publications? Of course, I'd give BTW five out five stars right away like all the others Gaga fans, but, from an academic viewpoint, I ain't that sure about how it reflects its true, artistic qualities... -- Frous (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Writers' Credits
Why has Jeppe Laursen been omitted as a co-writer? The official iTunes download lists the composers as Lady Gaga and Jeppe Laursen (he's half of the duo, Junior Senior), yet everyone seems to be claiming that Stefani wrote it herself (including Perez Hilton, who is "proud" of the fact that she wrote it "100% by herself", then commented on how Madonna had never done that before *then had to eat his words when proven wrong). I've just had a look at Jeppe's own entry on here and it's listed (no link to this article, though).58.105.154.153 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about this as well. Billboard lists him as part of the song's writing and producing as well. ℥nding · start 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It still hasn't been edited by someone with the appropriate privileges. Is there some doubt over the credit??Cartoneaus (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Broadcast Music Incorporated lists just Lady Gaga (under birthname Steffani Germonatta) wrote the song alone. Since this is the legal royalties licensing agency that is the most reliable source. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So does that mean that all credits printed on album/single sleeves and digital singles should be ignored?  I strongly suspect that the entry at the BMI will be altered, since it's highly unlikely that Lady Gaga or Interscope would allow someone else to be credited on the commercial release of the single if they didn't actually co-write it.  Interscope obviously provided iTunes with the info about Jeppe Laursen, so I don't think there should be any doubt that he co-wrote the song (i.e. the BMI database is wrong, or refers to the original demo of the song, which could have been quite different to the final version).Cartoneaus (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the official lyrics that GaGa herself twittered out into the universe, it just lits HER as the writer and no one else. And, as far as I can read (i.e. MTV or other reviews) they also only mention GaGa as a writer. This Jeppe-guy I've only read here and on billboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.177.216 (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So your suggesting the legal authority which licenses songs and actually registers the writers of each song to ensure that loyalties are paid is incorrect just because iTunes lists other writers? Baring in mind this is the same iTunes that often gets release dates wrong and has known database errors? &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We have many concrete sources (ie. the credits tweeted by Lady Gaga herself, as well as the BMI credits) which are much more reliable than iTunes. For all we know, Billboard could be basing their facts off of the iTunes credits. Save-Me-Oprah (talk)  21:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that BMI might be listing a demo version is ludacris because the royalties are paid from the moment the song is made available to purchase. The credits would thus need to have been established and legalised in advance of the song's release. Unless Gaga herself mentions anyone else the BMI reference is our most credible source because its legally binding! &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  21:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we won't know what the deal is until the album comes out. :P I find it strange how Billboard would list this guy as a co-writer and co-producer though if it isn't true. ℥nding · start 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um....no, it's not ludicrous. In any case, the BMI doesn't deal with royalties generated by the sale of music - it deals solely with performance royalties (airplay, public broadcast etc.), so your understanding of the workings and purpose of the BMI in inaccurate.  As for iTunes, the writers' credits are supplied to them by the record company that provides them with the track.  Why would iTunes staff randomly throw a co-writer into the mix?  Why this particular one?  Is a CD single scheduled for release?  If it is and it features Jeppe Laursen's name, will this be disregarded because the BMI doesn't list him as a co-writer, or will his name on a physical release of the song outweigh all other evidence?Cartoneaus (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated by Billboard Jeppe Laursen is the co-writer and producer of the track. It's also mentioned in an article on the Danish music website Soundvenue: Junior Senior-sanger står bag ny Lady Gaga-single (in Danish). FYI Credits on BMI aren't reliable. Songs are often submitted to their publishers on early stages in the song-writing process, in this case before Jeppe Laursen was involved. It's also mentioned in the news paper B.T. that Lady Gaga spent four danish in a recording studio in Copenhagen when she visited Denmark for her concert in Herning on October 20, 2010. (see Lady Gaga: Nyt look, ny sang)--z33k (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaga posted the credits for the song and this songwriter/producer is not mentioned. Furthermore, if you look at the legal credits for the song on BMI, Gaga is listed as the only songwriter. End of discussion Jeppe Laursen will not be added back and any further attempts to add him back will be reverted. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And IP, I purchased the song from iTunes. The composer field was blank. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I purchased it from iTunes and here is a cut and paste of the info from the composer field: Lady GaGa & Jeppe Laursen If this is the credit that ends up appearing on the CD single, then you absolutely cannot dispute that Jeppe Laursen should be listed as a songwriter, and any attempts to delete him should be reverted.  End of discussion.Cartoneaus (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Chase, your ignorance is disgusting.--z33k (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Four Danish sources in your face: "Kendt dansk musiker bag Lady Gagas monster-hit", "Jeppe "Senior" står bag ny Lady Gaga-single", "Jeppe "Senior" har co-skrevet Lady Gagas nye single", and "Danske Junior Senior-Jeppe bag Gaga-single". The new trademark of Wikipedia is to ignore facts that aren't coming from American or British sources. Way to go!--z33k (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The song's legal credits do not list Jeppe Laursen as a songwriter. I don't get how I can make my point any clearer. And btw, comments like "ignorant" and "disgusting" are bordering into WP:NPA. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Straight from the horse's mouth: It has now been confirmed by Jeppe Laursen himself on his Facebook and Twitter profiles. Jeppe Laursen on Facebook and on Twitter. Owned.--z33k (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, but Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources.--NicolásTM (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Chase referred to Gaga's post on twitter when disputing Jeppe's involvement in the writing of the song, then added the BMI reference as a "furthermore" (i.e. it was the secondary part of his argument). The printed issue of Billboard magazine will list the songwriters when it's published over the next few days.  If it lists Jeppe Laursen, what happens then?  Will Billboard be branded an "unreliable source" or will the integrity of the BMI database come under question?211.31.254.102 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sony/ATV, the music publisher to which Gaga and RedOne are signed to, lists both Germanotta and Khayat (RedOne) as writers of the song. https://satv.sonydadc.com/sony_atv/cgi-bin/details?trackId=SATV00000188965. I believe the online public search database is not necessarily the same, and naturally not nearly as detailed, as the company's internal database used in its operations; No doubt this must be an administrative error in the online database. Theoretically per this source, RedOne can be added. I also wouldn't be surprised if RedOne actually is on this song if he made some minor contributions like in fine-tuning the track, in which case he would have a small split in the publishing royalty. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Furthermore, as Laursen is from Denmark, his collection society is KODA (Denmark). Unfortunately KODA's website does not feature a public online database to get official conformation on his writing credit. Imperatore (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what Imperatore said, I would add RedOne and Lady Gaga as the only songwriters. His source is more reliable than the BMI one. This would also make since as I've yet to find a song produced by RedOne that doesn't list him as a songwriter too... &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  21:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think BMI is equally as reliable as they share the same authoritativeness; BMI acts as the collection agency for most, if not all, of Sony/ATV's operations, including Lady Gaga's Sony/ATV imprint "Haus of Gaga Publishing". So just the fact that they don't match signals that one of them, or less likely both of them, are incorrect or inaccurate. Imperatore (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

extra 21 Feb 2011 = The writer section should be "Lady Gaga" not "Stefani Germanotta". Well, they are the same person but Lady Gaga is the name she is known for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.146.103 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another proof for your ignorant people. Here's a scan of the Promo CD: http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1346/ladygagabornthiswaycd.jpg --z33k (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I started this thread and it's nice to see that finally, a source has come along that an editor actually believes :-).211.31.240.65 (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, earlier posters used Gaga's tweets as "evidence" that she was the sole songwriter. Clearly, she was not telling the truth.  Does this mean that Gaga herself is now an "unreliable source"?  Food for thought, since the only public statement that she has made about the writing of the song is that she did it by herself...220.236.231.47 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I won.--z33k (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * how mature... you must be so proud of yourself. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't cry. My victory also supports my first argument: "FYI Credits on BMI aren't reliable. Songs are often submitted to their publishers on early stages in the song-writing process, in this case before Jeppe Laursen was involved". BMI now lists Gaga, Blair, Garibay and Laursen as authors/writers, but we know only Gaga and Laursen wrote the song, which proves my argument: BMI = not reliable. --z33k (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an attempt by editors to ensure that only the most factual and reliable of data is used within the article. Maybe if editors would actually calm down and act maturely then we wouldn't have discussions like this in the first place. The victory is not yours cus it wasn't a war but rather its a victory for facts. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical Response section
Why is it that every Gaga song must be concluded with some terrible comment or review? Can't we leave the "Yahoo! Music" Review out? They were never mentioned in any previous Gaga articles! Honestly every other pop song article has little to no negative reviews on it so why must Gaga be the exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.182.29 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt Gaga is an exception, since Britney has it too, but you can't use all positive reviews because songs don't receive just positive reviews. They also receive negative ones. --Shadow (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

-That's understood but rarely do people have negative reviews on their articles, Rihanna and Katy Perry don't have negative ones and their songs are less than credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.182.29 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Rihanna and Katy Perry don't have negative ones and their songs are less than credible.". Was that a personal opinion?! Oh, guess what... Reviews are based on personal opinions and preferences too. Nice. --z33k (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Composition section?
Hi, I'm not a professional of Wikipedia so I just want some discussion on this. I just really believe that song articles on Wikipedia are so heavy in text and unnecessary information on 'reception', while what the song itself is receives NO information at all! Isn't it reasonable to say that an article about anything should describe what the thing in particular is and what it can be broken down into, rather than what a mass of critics think about it? Wouldn't it be more useful to write about at least the tempo, style, lyrical theme, instrumentation and key of the song, which are the most important pieces of information? I'm not familiar on the usual protocol for adding composition information to a song article, so could you please help me out a bit here? I'd like to see a shift in song articles from a mountain of reviews into a wealth of knowledge about what the song itself is. Facts over opinions, right? Thanks guys; tell me what you think please! -- EryZ (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're just going by what's on the FAs and GAs. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  14:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As per When Love Takes Over, you'll see that information such as tempo, style, lyrical theme, instrumentation and key of the song are also written when such information becomes available... &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure what FAs and GAs are ... I think they're Featured Articles and Good Articles? But after a quick look at some of the FAs and GAs, they seem to all have reasonable (albeit still relatively short...) composition sections. Okay, we'll just wait for some good sources to pop up then! -- EryZ (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance
If the song charted at number 3 on the uk singles chart. why has the information been deleted?
 * Obviously because I see no source. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha i'll keep my sarcastic remarks to myself, i'll be nice and give you a source http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.233.151 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * XD Does it really matter if it isn't in the article? It was just added. But I'll keep anymore of my sarcastic remarks to myself. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The song is number one in the Spanish charts (PROMUSICAE) and in the Billboard Hot 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasingpei (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to the song article
I think "Born This Way" should be redirect to the song article, not the album article. 187.2.171.124 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the convention is that the song is called Name (song) and the album Name. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  14:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation template
Could anyone add the disambiguation template, as is in Born_This_Way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLittleMonster (talk • contribs)
 * Done. In the future, use Template:Request edit to request an edit to a protected page. And please sign talk page messages. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your good faith edit, Hekerui. Anyone arriving at Born This Way (song) would not be looking for the album as the link is not ambiguous (WP:NAMB). Yves (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Music Video Director
In her discography, under the "Music Videos" tab, its written that Nick Knight is the director of Born This Way's music video, over here its written Jonas Akerlund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.46.94 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Music Video
http://gagadaily.com/2011/02/lady-gaga-visits-tonight-show-with-jay-leno/

This interview states by Gaga Herself that Nick Knight is the director, not Jonas Åkerlund. 119.153.115.183 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Genest (Zombie Boy) is tattooed, not painted as the article currently states. Source: http://www.bizarremag.com/weird-news/tattoos-body-art/7173/zombie_boy.html 98.182.30.97 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture
We should add a picture of the performance at the Grammys for Born This Way. That way the article would look attractive. 203.99.191.252 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

#1 in US OFFICIAL
http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-claims-1-000th-hot-100-no-1-with-1005036702.story#/news/lady-gaga-claims-1-000th-hot-100-no-1-with-1005036702.story

Story from Billboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

UK
The Official Charts Company in the UK released the chart update which states that the sing has gone to #1. I think we should add it. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It says it is "on course for fifth #1", which doesn't equal "it is the fifth #1". -- Frous (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Chart Update is just a snapshot of the week's sales so far, but it's not an official chart. – anemone projectors – 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am very sick of people vandalizing the charts with the false data. The next time it is done, it will be considered vandalism. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Billboard inconsistent on no. of #1 debuts: is "BTW" 19th or 20th?
Hi!

Some of you may have noticed, but Billboard says "Born This Way" is the 19th #1 debut on Hot 100, but if you look closely their websites, it leaves you actually two choices...

A) "Born This Way" is the 19th (without R. Kelly's "I'm Your Angel" on Dec 5, 1998 on the list)

B) "Born This Way" is the 20th, with R. Kelly's "I'm Your Angel" on the list.

So. Billboard leaves two options, which is the correct for us to use? :D -- Frous (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The second... becayse you can't deny that I'm Your Angel debuted at number one unless this can be factually discredited elsewhere. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  04:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But hey, wait a second. Perhaps "I'm Your Angel" is not included, because it's a duet with Céline Dion? There's an Aerosmith hit included too, so the reason for "I'm Your Angel"'s exclusion can't be that it's not performed by one person. -- Frous (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I conclude with your analysis. Gaga's "Born This Way" is the nineteenth number one debut on the Hot 100, by a solo artist. (i'd word it like that) &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the reason is "a.k.a. featured songs are not included". -- Frous (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The inclusion/exclusing of "I'm Your Angel" has to do with the changing of Billboard's chart policy when it debuted and nothing to do with it being a duet. I believe December '98 was when non-commercial singles were eligible to chart for the first time, so while it debuted at #1 it really wasn't its debut. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1,000 #1 Single?
Billboard claims that Born This Way is the 1,000 #1 on in the chart's history. However, didn't they claim Katy Perry's I Kissed a Girl was the 1,000 hit back in 2008? --Shadow (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Billboard means that "Born This Way" is the 1,000th in the list of different singles on top of the list. In other words, all the no. weeks of "I Kissed a Girl" (for example) are not included in the list. -- Frous (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think that's exactly what they mean. The 1000th hit for "I Kissed a Girl" was for the 1000th number-one song of the Rock Era, which counts songs before the Billboard Hot 100 was introduced. Yves (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Madonna's e-mail
Madonna's rep denies ever sending an e-mail to Lady Gaga. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rep-madonna-never-emailed-lady-100361 189.33.152.29 (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All of these stories come from the examiner, which is not a reliable source. Madonna herself has not stated anything.

Charts
Aren't there any chart updates... I don't see anything but four countries...--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to be none. I've checked those too, maybe the lists in Europe are updated more towards the end of the week. -- Frous (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW is platinum in us!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.116.245 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Justinboyer, 17 February 2011
The music video for Born This Way was directed by fashion photographer Nick Knight. She has confirmed this on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and in various radio interviews.

Justinboyer (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This article says the video was directed by Jonas Åkerlund. this article confirms that]. This article, on the other hand, says that Lady Gaga, Nick Knight, Laurieann Gibson and the Haus of Gaga all co-directed it, although Lady Gaga's statement doesn't really comment on how that could have worked out.
 * Symbol_delete_vote.svg Not done. The article currently says that the video was directed by Nick Knight, but the reference in the article doesn't back that up, so I'm going to say that Jonas Åkerlund directed it.  When the full video is released, we'll be able to see what it says in its credits. Banaticus (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! I had put the newer MTV report in but someone replaced it with the older stuff. The video will be out in no time anyway. DinDraithou (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons... with Madonna
I think it would be fair to state that Rolling Stone said it was actually better than Express Yourself... otherwise the article would be biased. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blogs/pop-life/lady-gagas-born-this-way-much-better-than-express-yourself-20110211
 * That's already been said. I'm pretty sure it is in the reviews. If you mean to change it to where it says something like "though the song has been compared to Madonna's 'Express Yourself', Rolling Stone said it was better", than that is biased and sounds like you are trying to cover it up. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No I meant that first review was rolling stone giving the song a positive review... the second was not a review it was a response to the comparisons with Madonna. What I'm saying is that it's the only magazine or website that dedicated two articles to the song one a review the other to clarify it's opinion on the comparisons. I'm just requesting that we say what Rolling Stone thinks of the comparisons not the song itself. Get what I mean?--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for accusing you of anything. :P No hard feelings. I think it should be added, now that I know what you are saying. Sounds great! -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this line " CNN later reported that Madonna's representative was 'not aware that Madonna sent Gaga an e-mail.'" Why is whether Madonna's representative was informed about this relevant? This isn't an article about the relationship between Madonna and her representatives. I also think it goes against WP:BLP because it implies some sort of allegation that the email didn't exist when there is no sources in this article that suggest this to be the case. It would be one thing if the representative said that the email never happened or if Madonna said this, but the rep saying she wasn't informed of this is not strong enough to cut the WP:BLP guidelines in my opinion. I'm going to delete it but feel free to discuss why it should be there or what statement should replacement. --MATThematical (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre..?
Multiple sources have said that this song is dance-pop with disco influences. Why is it set as electropop and dance-pop. As a matter of fact why is every gaga song just electropop and dance-pop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.78.198 (talk • contribs) 1:40 am, 18 February 2011
 * Please provide your source here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's one of the multiple sources that say that it has a disco vibe.

Another source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1657897/lady-gaga-grammy-awards.jhtml
 * words like "vibe", "feel" etc.... mean its contains elements of but is not strictly of that genre. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  14:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Then can it at least be mentioned in the article that it has disco influences on the composition section or something like that? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.78.198 (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way is the fastest selling song in iTunes History
This should be included, Born this way has been named the fastest selling song in iTunes History, selling over 1 million digital tracks in just five days after the release of the single. New York Times: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/a-sales-record-for-lady-gaga/?src=twrhp MTV: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1658317/lady-gaga-born-this-way-itunes.jhtml --West231 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sales statistics of one retailer are not allowed (by WP:BADCHARTS). In other words, the sales figures must represent the sales by the whole industry, so we just have to wait for comprehensive statistics of (at least, I suppose) the majority of digital-music retailers to be released. -- 82.181.251.33 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Australia
Hasn't been updated on the table of chart positions yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

UK Chart
Hi, It says: According to The Official Charts Company, the song is likely to reach the number-one position on February 20, 2011. It didn't? It stayed at #3... they were wrong? thanks Ofekalef (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Charts in Germany or Austria?
Heyyy.

Has anyone got a clue where those charts are available? I tried to google Media Control charts for Germany, but it seems like it's a subscription-only publication.... -- Frous (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CHARTSCHART has a handy guide! As of now, it doesn't look like "Born This Way" has charted in either of these two countries. Yves (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Germany – its hard to navigate at first but you'll get used to it eventually
 * Austria –

If in doubt in the future see WP:Record charts &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Record
"Born This Way" has sold 957,000 digital copies in its first two weeks of release. Only one song has ever sold more copies in its first two weeks. Flo Rida's "Right Round" sold 1,096,0000 in its first two weeks in February 2009. source.

This is quite important and should be included!

--79.216.220.211 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The record was 448,000 a week to download and female —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.198.243 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Critical success?
OK, I'm sorry, but you are going too far in calling it a critical success. We have a handful of critics who call it bad and that doesn't equal up to a critical success. "Mixed to positive" would best describe its reception. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  22:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no opposition I will change it. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Include this please:
"Born This Way" is the first song since Clay Aiken's This Is the Night to debut at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and stay there the following week source.--79.216.186.193 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Videos!
There Would Be Two Videos For It So Write It P: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.125.230 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? Yves (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an audio stream from the interview where the Lady herself announces it. 130.195.33.76 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

#1 on OFFICIAL Chart for Netherlands
http://www.radio538.nl/web/show/id=875994


 * 1) 1 on Dutch Top 40 rather than Top 100 Singles, Top 40 is the official chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Scottish
Nº 1 in Scottish´debut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.236.34 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Adabow (talk · contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

charts
gagadaily says the born this way in 14 countries right now can you added or just look for better information thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.115.204 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can count at least 20 charts on the article, so I'm not sure why you have a problem. Adabow (talk · contribs) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (Dusty Springfield)
If anybody doesn't know Dusty Springfield's Born This Way, they really need to check it out, because I think there are some similarities between Lady Gaga's version and hers. Dusty Springfield had an album out in 1990 called Reputation (which was a dance album simliar to Lady Gaga's style of music), way before Lady Gaga had a music career. Dusty released her album Reputation as a Vinyl CD and her song Born This Way was released as the 5th track on side A of the vinyl CD. I think all the critics are looking at Madonna for her song "Express Yourself" as the cause for similarities to Lady Gaga's song "Born This Way", but I actually think Dusty Springfield offered some sort of inspration to Lady Gaga and her song. Dusty Sprinfield's version wasn't released as a single like the other two songs on her album Reputation, "In Private" and "Nothing Has Been Proved". I didn't know any other way to get this comment more reputation except to post it on here but I hope it goes a long way to let people know that Dusty Springfield also had a song called "Born This Way". http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/feb/14/lady-gaga-gay-anthem, Here is an article where it mentions her and Dusty Springfield. I just looked it up and I found this article by The Guardian newspaper website.

Any sources that back up this statement? This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.33.76 (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

CNN quote about the email
This is an article that has only one sentence about the incident, and provides no details about any context of the interview with the representative. I don't see how one representative being "unaware" about the email contributes to this article in a encyclopedic way. In fact the article does not even mention the question the representative was asked. I think when or if Madonna or a representative actually claims that Madonna's camp did not send the email (not just being unaware of the email) then a sentence should be added. Otherwise I fail to see how this sentence keeps with WP standards. Is there a WP:reliable source that talks about this beyond the one sentence quote in the CNN article? I'll let people find such a source before I delete the sentence again, because I agree that something should be there if we can get a source that concretely says that a representative refutes Gaga's claim. Otherwise the sentence fails basic WP standards. --MATThematical (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way Video
The first reviews are in: PopEater calls the video #creative and visually arresting as anything Mother Monster has ever unleashed on her adoring fans" http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/28/lady-gaga-born-this-way-video/

MTV gave also a great review of the video, saying "his is Gaga at her most fabulous, her most out-there, her most, well, Gaga" http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1658858/lady-gaga-born-this-way-video.jhtml --West231 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The music video was released at Vevo, and Lady Gaga's vevo on Youtube (youtube.com/ladygagavevo) Some sources are http://www.facebook.com/VEVO, http://twitter.com/vevo, http://twitter.com/LadyGaga, and facebook.com/ladygaga. I hope the needs clarification tag can now be removed and it can be updated that the music video was also released on Lady Gaga's Vevo Youtube Channel --Nyswimmer (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody mention Bernard Herrmann and Vertigo in the section on the music video, NOW. --98.232.176.109 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a mention in the Synopsis section on 1 March 2011, but User Raphael99 reversed my edit without comment. I will reinstate. The News Hound 05:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The News Hound (talk • contribs)

Music video reviews
I found some reviews, they're pretty good so far.

NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2011/02/28/2011-02-28_lady_gaga_born_this_way_music_video_premieres_graphic_birth_imagery_breaks_taboo.html

PopEater: http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/28/lady-gaga-born-this-way-video/

Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-s-born-this-way-video-premieres-1005050882.story#/news/lady-gaga-s-born-this-way-video-premieres-1005050882.story

Entertainment Weekly: http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/02/28/lady-gaga-born-this-way-video/

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/28/lady-gaga-born-this-way-video_n_829168.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLittleMonster (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Boy
Just thought maybe you should add in that the zombie guy is Rick Genest who appeared in the Theirry Mugler clip :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.195.155 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not important.  Cra sh  Underride  12:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

3 weeks atop
Born this way is on top of the billboard hot 100 for its third consecutive week. This is remarkable because its the first time a song that debuted at number one achieves this. This can be seen by the fact that the article says that born this way was the second song to ever been on top of the hot 100 for two weeks (having debuted at 1), the other song was one of American Idol wich stayed on top for two weeks also. So this clearly means born this way is the first one ever to be there for 3 weeks, I think that should be added. Thanks ^^

Somebody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.97.197 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

‎"Born This Way" es disco de platino en EE.UU
El último single de Gaga, Born This Way se mantiene por tercera semana consecutiva en el puesto #1 de la Billboard Hot 100 con 286.000 descargas esta semana en Estados Unidos que, sumadas a las ventas totales en el país, da un total de 1.240.000 copias vendidad convirtiéndo el single en la canción más vendida de 2011 de manera más rápida y en poco tiempo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.236.34 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What my friend here is trying to say is Born This Way has gone platinum in the US billboard reported it and I can't seem to find the story but gagadaily has reported (I know there not reliable) but they are accurate on this one. I can't find the story on the billboard site but maybe some other reliable sources would have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.202.98 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW has not been certified by the RIAA. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

IS OFFLIVIAL !!!! ADDED !!!! I FOUND IN PEREZ HILTON IN GAGADAYLI IN BILLBOARD !!!! WHAT DO YOU NEED TO ADDEN ..JUST ADDED ..PLEASEEEEE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.239.180 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So Perez Hilton, Gagadaily and Billboard are the new RIAA? Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical success? (2)
Again, I am posting this just to make sure that nobody has any opposition against me changing it to "mixed to positive." -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone once told me "'Mixed' means they weren't all good or all bad. 'Mixed' isn't on a scale half way between good and bad. Just say 'mixed', or if they were mostly positive, say 'generally positive' or something." and I agree with this. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen mixed to positive used in articles where, for example, you will have 4 critics who though it was great, 2 who are unsure, and 4 who did not like it. It isn't quite half-and-half, but more like 3/4 positive. That's the best I can explain it. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "mixed to positive" have to disappear. It gives the sense of the reception was mixed or positive, and is better "generally positive". For your example if I understood correctly you have 10 critiques, 4 positives, 2 "neutrals" and 4 negatives = the result by default is mixed. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess if you think "mixed to positive" needs to disappear, then we can just go with mixed. "Critical success" might be the most biased statement I have seen on an article of such a high profile artist. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody changed it again! They put thas was mixed n made feel that there were more songs taht sounded like it. Can anybody change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.97.197 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

#32 in Czech Airplay Chart
http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.236.34 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

4th week on top
The song is on its 4th consecutive week atop the billboard hot 100 chart. This is remarkable because is the first time a song that debuted at first achieves this since Aerosmith's "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" in 1998. And is the first one to do so in the digital era. This can all be seen in this article from billboard: http://www.billboard.com/#/news/britney-spears-world-spins-onto-hot-100-1005067192.story I think this should be added. Thanks ^^ --190.131.98.6 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * its already been mentioned. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  15:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rumania Airplay top 100
Lady Gaga nº38

http://www.charly1300.com/polskaairplay.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyGaga1234 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BADCHARTS. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Polska Top 100 Airplay
Lady Gaga Nº1

http://www.charly1300.com/polskaairplay.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyGaga1234 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BADCHARTS. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Europe

 * 1) 1 in European Mega Charts

http://european-mega-charts.blogspot.com/2011/03/european-charts-week-11-12032011.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Racism?
"The song has garnered criticism from some Asian and Hispanic communities"

I've yet to see ANY complaints from Asian groups or even real people. The only article I've read is the one by "Miguel Perez" on Hispanically Speaking: http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/asians-join-latinos-in-condemning-lady-gaga/4992/

^Sorry, but some quotes made up in some poorly written article are hardly evidence of "criticism from Asian communities." Moreover, I can't even find websites for the Hispanic organizations supposedly criticizing the song. MECha and Chicanos Unidos Arizona are just organizations "Miguel Perez" is supposedly a part of; I googled both and I can't find any articles or press releases with criticism on their part. In fact, I can't even find a website for either "organization."

I'm deleting the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section and just keeping the Robert Paul Reyes quote even though I don't know how NewsBlaze.com is supposed to be taken as a reputable source since it looks like a cheap, user-contributed site. AyanP (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Ayan


 * There's also this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/14/lady-gaga-monster-born-this-way

US Sales (Platinum)
According to Gaga Daily, Born This Way has gone platinum in the US. Here is the link to prove it ---> http://gagadaily.com/2011/03/born-this-way-goes-platinum-spends-third-week-atop-billboard-hot-100/ Also, in the article, it says that according to Nielsen SoundScan Born This Way has sold 1.474 million digital downloads. According to Nielsen SoundScan, 1,000,000 tracks downloaded is considered a platinum record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification#Singles. Zpenguin23 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Zpenguin23
 * Unfortunately, we can't use those sources; we only use certifications directly from providers, which is the RIAA in this case. Record labels have to apply for certifications, too; they aren't automatically given out. Yves (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

#1 in 15 countries
In the introduction, the song is said to have gone to #1 in 13 countries. Since then, she has topped the charts in Austria and Germany, making it 15. Source is the table of chart positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

#1 in Brazil
http://top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid=8 http://www.hot100brasil.com/chtsinglesb.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.104.229 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Airplay Chart information in "Chart Success"
The second paragraph of the chart success section says Born This Way has reached number four on the US airplay shart. This is incorrect, as it has reached number three and has been there for two consecutive weeks: http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/radio-songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.105.66 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)