Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 15

Born This Way
I was looking in the Born This Way section of the article, and things are looking really minimal; there is no reference to the new singles, their chart positions, their videos, her MTV awards, etc etc. I know that articles shouldn't report every single small piece of recent news, yet, I think that we are taking this principle too far - anyone who reads, unless they go on the corresponding pages of the album and singles, has barely any idea about her new singles, how they've done, their new music videos, her new MTV Awards, etc. I propose, and I can write this myself, a short, one-paragraph, description of her recent album/single achievements, only highlighting the most important and relevant material. Any suggestions? --&#38;レア (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the proposed version (hopefully the order is right):--&#38;レア (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaga's second studio album and third major release Born This Way was released on May 23, 2011. She announced the title of the album during her acceptance speech for Video of the Year at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards. Described as "a marriage of electronic music with major [...] metal or rock 'n' roll, pop, anthemic style melodies with really sledge-hammering dance beats" and referred to as an album "about what what keeps us up at night and what makes us afraid", she stated, "It came so quickly. I've been working on [the album] for months, and I feel very strongly that it's finished right now. Some artists take years. I don't. I write music every day." Likening Born This Way to "bad kids going to church" that are "having fun on a high level", Gaga characterized her new music as "something so much deeper than a wig or lipstick or a fucking meat dress" and upon hearing it, Akon remarked that she will take music to the "next level". Its arrival followed the release of its eponymous lead single on February 11, 2011, which was performed live for the first time at the 53rd Grammy Awards two days after its release. The song debuted atop the Billboard Hot 100, becoming the 19th number-one debut and the 1,000th number-one single in the history of the charts, while the song had sold over 3 million digital copies in the United States by October 2011, becoming her eighth consecutive single exceeding the sales of two million. With debate on whether or not "Born This Way" should be championed as "The New Gay Anthem", the song deals with self-acceptance regardless of race or sexual orientation. A music video was released for the song, showing Gaga giving birth to a new race amidst surrealistic images; critics noted artistic and cultural references, and praised its concept. Aside from her new single, Gaga lent her vocals elsewhere, pairing with Elton John to record an original duet for the animated feature film Gnomeo & Juliet. The song, titled "Hello, Hello", was released on February 11, 2011, without Gaga's vocals. The duet version was only featured in the film. In February, Gaga's concerts of her then-ongoing tour at Madison Square Garden in New York City, were filmed for an HBO special aired in May. The special was nominated for five Emmy Awards.

Two other singles, "Judas" and "The Edge of Glory",  as well as a promotional single, "Hair", were eventually released before the album. The music video for "Judas", in which Gaga portrays Mary Magdalene, and Biblical figures such as Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot are featured, was criticized for its religious references; the video, nonetheless, received acclaim for its overall delivery and praise from others who claimed that there was nothing offensive about it. "Judas" additionally peaked within the top ten in several major musical markets. The latter was intended as a promotional single, yet, due to commercial success in digital outlets, was released as a single to critical appreciation with an accompanying music video ; alongside the song also peaked within the top ten in numerous countries. Gaga also undertook a job as a fashion columnist for V, where she wrote about her creative process, her studying of the world of pop culture, and her ability to tune into the evolution of pop-culture meme. Upon release, Born This Way sold 1.108 million copies in its first week in the United States, debuting atop the Billboard 200, and topping the charts in more than 20 other countries. The album received generally positive reviews from music critics, who praised the album's range of different styles as well as her vocals, receiving a 71/100 rating on MetaCritic. Next month she went to Sydney to promote Born This Way with a one-of-a-kind concert at the Sydney Town Hall on July 13, 2011.

She continued her musical endeavors, releasing "You and I" as the fourth single from Born This Way alongside an accompanying video, as well as recording songs with veteran artists like Cher and Tony Bennett. The song recorded with Bennett is a jazz version of "The Lady Is a Tramp", while Gaga described her duet with Cher as a "massive" and "beautiful" track, which she "wrote a long time ago, and I've never put it on one of my own albums for, really, no particular reason." On August 28, at the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards, Gaga won two awards out of four nominations, winning both for her video for "Born This Way", and being nominated without winning the latter for her "Judas" music video. At the event, Gaga dressed as Jo Calderone, her male alter-ego. For the 2012 edition of the Guinness World Records, Gaga was listed for Most Followers on Twitter, with over 13 million followers, and her 2008 single "Poker Face" was listed for Most Weeks on US Digital Hot Songs, with 83 weeks. In October 2011, it was confirmed that a biopic about Lady Gaga is currently being developed. [removed due to recentism and crystal ball] Lady Gaga performed at the celebration of former US president Bill Clinton's 65th Birthday alongside Bono, Stevie Wonder and Usher, among others. She wore a blond wig as a nod to the famous performance of Marilyn Monroe for John F. Kennedy and changed the lyrics to her song "You and I" specifically for the performance.
 * I think you should trim down the singles information. I'll put some strikethroughs in and you can remove anyone if you want to. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  11:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm only removing the strikethroughs of the Judas video reception (by saying it received criticism it makes it look as if the video received negative reviews only whilst most were positive) as well as those of the 1000th single, because I think it's quite an important achievement.--&#38;レア (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems rather trivial, don't you think? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, new revision. Unless anyone objects or finds something incorrect, I'll be updating it soon.--&#38;レア (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaga's second studio album and third major release Born This Way was released on May 23, 2011. She announced the title of the album during her acceptance speech for Video of the Year at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards. Described as "a marriage of electronic music with major [...] metal or rock 'n' roll, pop, anthemic style melodies with really sledge-hammering dance beats" and referred to as an album "about what what keeps us up at night and what makes us afraid", she stated, "It came so quickly. I've been working on [the album] for months, and I feel very strongly that it's finished right now. Some artists take years. I don't. I write music every day." Gaga characterized her new music as "something so much deeper than a wig or lipstick or a fucking meat dress" and upon hearing it, Akon remarked that she will take music to the "next level". Its arrival followed the release of its eponymous lead single on February 11, 2011, which was performed live for the first time at the 53rd Grammy Awards two days after its release. The song debuted atop the Billboard Hot 100, becoming the 19th number-one debut and the 1,000th number-one single in the history of the charts, while the song had sold over 3 million digital copies in the United States by October 2011, becoming her eighth consecutive single exceeding the sales of two million. The song deals with self-acceptance regardless of race or sexual orientation. A music video was released for the song, showing Gaga giving birth to a new race amidst surrealistic images; critics noted artistic and cultural references, and praised its concept. Gaga lent her vocals elsewhere, pairing with Elton John to record an original duet for the animated feature film Gnomeo & Juliet. The song, titled "Hello, Hello", was released on February 11, 2011, without Gaga's vocals. The duet version was only featured in the film. In February, Gaga's concerts of her then-ongoing tour at Madison Square Garden in New York City, were filmed for an HBO special aired in May. The special was nominated for five Emmy Awards.

Two other singles, "Judas" and "The Edge of Glory",  as well as a promotional single, "Hair", were eventually released before the album. The music video for "Judas", in which Gaga portrays Mary Magdalene, and Biblical figures such as Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot are featured, was criticized for its religious references; the video, nonetheless, received acclaim for its overall delivery and praise from others who claimed that there was nothing offensive about it. "Judas" additionally peaked within the top ten in several major musical markets. The latter was intended as a promotional single, yet, due to commercial success in digital outlets, was released as a single to critical appreciation with an accompanying music video;. Gaga also undertook a job as a fashion columnist for V, where she wrote about her creative process, her studying of the world of pop culture, and her ability to tune into the evolution of pop-culture meme. Upon release, Born This Way sold 1.108 million copies in its first week in the United States, debuting atop the Billboard 200, and topping the charts in more than 20 other countries. The album received generally positive reviews from music critics, who praised the album's range of different styles as well as her vocals, Later, Gaga went to Sydney to promote Born This Way with a one-of-a-kind concert at the Sydney Town Hall on July 13, 2011.

She continued her musical endeavors, releasing "You and I" as the fourth single from Born This Way alongside an accompanying video, as well as recording songs with veteran artists like Cher and Tony Bennett. The song recorded with Bennett is a jazz version of "The Lady Is a Tramp", while Gaga described her duet with Cher as a "massive" and "beautiful" track, which she "wrote a long time ago, and I've never put it on one of my own albums for, really, no particular reason." On August 28, at the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards, Gaga won two awards out of four nominations, winning both for her video for "Born This Way", and being nominated without winning the latter for her "Judas" music video. At the event, Gaga dressed as Jo Calderone, her male alter-ego. For the 2012 edition of the Guinness World Records, Gaga was listed for Most Followers on Twitter, with over 13 million followers, and her 2008 single "Poker Face" was listed for Most Weeks on US Digital Hot Songs, with 83 weeks. Lady Gaga performed at the celebration of former US president Bill Clinton's 65th Birthday alongside Bono, Stevie Wonder and Usher, among others. She wore a blond wig as a nod to the famous performance of Marilyn Monroe for John F. Kennedy and changed the lyrics to her song "You and I" specifically for the performance.

MAIN IMAGE OPTIONS
I feel that the main image really needs to be changed as Gaga's image is ever evolving, so is different from 2010. This one or something like it would be good. http://www.thesuperficial.com/lady-gaga-blood-bath-illuminati-satan-worship-09-2011/0927-lady-gaga-sting-iheartradio-09 (Main image)

The main image should be changed maybe every 6 months or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie0001 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These are from press photos, so they would be copyrighted and fail WP:NFCC#1. The choice for the infobox is restricted to free images, with a category for Lady Gaga here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This one should be used: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Gaga_in_Rome.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heugfignf (talk • contribs) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention of "Hair"
The section concerning the album "Born This Way" leaves out the release of the single "Hair" due to a low quality version being leaked onto pirating websites. The single was released days before the album on iTunes. Just wondering if this should be included. Gwickwire (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in the same section, the article incorrectly states that "You and I" was the fourth single to be released (see above). By the way, I had purchased the three singles as part of the "Countdown to Born This Way" on iTunes, and waited for the album for this song. However, I saw that the song had been released as a single with its own album art and everything I believe it was four days before the album was fully released for purchase. Gwickwire (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First comment: no, because of WP:LEAK. Second comment: Why is it incorrect? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The release onto a pirating website is signifigant because the song was released as a full-blown single (not just a promotional single) days before the album, making it the fourth single. I'm working on finding a citation for this, I'd have more luck on my other computer for that (it has the iTunes link of the actual single). Gwickwire (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Lady Gaga herself released the legal single onto iTunes a few days before the album, and not as part of the Countdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwickwire (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do we know? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, "Hair" was a promotional single and its release was planned from the beginning of the iTunes Countdown for Born This Way (iTunes had a page up saying that it would be released a week in advance). Secondly, you're confusing this with the song "Judas" which was released several days before its original release date due to a leak. Thirdly, this isn't notable enough for this article but perhaps the "Judas" article if it isn't already mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Name Link (Stop Erasing This)
I am writing this, yet again, because some administrator keeps erasing this, presumbaly because they do not want anyone to read this: Under the "Public Image" section in this article, the name of President Barack Obama is NOT highlighted with a link leading to his article. Why then do Chris Rock, Franc Fernandez, Amy Winehouse, John Lennon, Barbara Walters, Christina Aguilera, and several other people have highlighted names to access their articles, but the president doesn't? Regardless of your personal political views, the administrators at Wikipedia have a duty to be fair and impartial, regardless of their political feelings, regardless of who their favorite singer is, regardless of who their favorite actor is. If an administrator cant' be objective, then this is not the job for you. Why would every other person's name in that section be highlighted, with the exception of Barack Obama? This was surely done on purpose, because there would be no way to simply miss this. Not to mention the fact that I also pointed it out before, but my post was removed (I assume before many others could see it). This article is locked, so a simple fix by a reader can't even be done. This biased act needs to be corrected, and personal feelings need to be kept out of it. This is not a neutral-point-of-view towards President Barack Obama. What next, should people stop highlighting George W. Bush's name in other articles because of their personal feelings toward him. -Let's correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. It's just a link. 2. In some cases WP:OVERLINK applies, 3. In most cases, if not all, people such as Aguilera, Winehouse and Rock are mentioned multiple times in the article with links to their articles. Also, as for Obama, out of the six times he's been mentioned in the article, only once is his name hyperlinked.
 * Barring that, you really shouldn't be stressing over someting so insignificant. Other than "looks", those links are just there to link one article to another - nothing else. It has absolutely no personal beliefs attached to the link whatsover. I'll let you know that I'm from Australia, and Barack Obama personally, is just like any other politician around the world. All the same.
 * This POV dispute, officially resolved. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, your original post was not deleted. It's 8 posts above this one, entitled "Links". -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So can we get a fix and hyperlink his name? It looks very odd that he is the ONLY one not hyperlinked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

His name is not mentioned anywhere else in the article; that section is the only place where his name is mentioned. Since that is the ONLY place his name is mentioned, then his name should be hyperlinked, since we cannot say it is hyperlinked somewhere else. It looks very odd and suspicious that it is not hyperlinked at all (really it does). Can we get a fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ctrl + f on the keyboard says otherwise. He's mentioned 6 times, not once. Also, please check in the "LGBT advocacy" section, and you'll see his name is hyperlinked. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, I was about to give credit and say thank you because I see that his name is hyperlinked under the section "LGBT advocay". Then I read the actual sentence: Lady Gaga is "the real fierce advocate for gays and lesbians, one that Barack Obama had promised to be"... So let me get this straight. Obama's name is not hyperlinked even though his name is mentioned BEFORE this section. But when the sentence is related to something NEGATIVE (such as Lady Gaga being more supportive of gay people than he is), that's when his name gets hyperlinked? You can see how bias this is, right? Why not hyperlink the name the first time it is mentioned in the article, not the last time that is associated with a negative connotation. -And not that I need to go into this, but he is the one that has allowed gay people to serve in the military. I like Lady Gaga but she doesn't have the ability to okay that. Also, some entertainers are speaking up for gay people which is good, but it is just speaking up. Obama has gone as far as to allow gays to serve in the military. Look at all the Republican candidates for president in 2012; none o them would offer gay marriage for anything in the world; Obama would offer it before they will. So I think it's wrong to say that an entertainer who has sung a song on behave of a gay man and has an anti-homophobic stance (although in good intentions as Lady Gaga really is) has done MORE than a person who also has an anti-homophobic stance and has allowed gays to serve in the military. But this isn't about politics. It's about being unbiased in Wikipedia. And to not hyperlink someone's name UNTIL you come to a negative and less-than-flattering statement isn't being unbiased. It doesn't matter if we are talking about Mother Teresa, the Pope, Hitler, or Stalin, the first time that their name is mentioned there should be a hyperlink. You shouldn't choose to not do it until you have (what you perceive as) negativity associated with the person, and then hyperlink their name. There is no reason for this bias in a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia article; especially when the EASY fix is just to hyperlink the name the first time. Leave it hyperlinked or un-hyperlink it the subsequent times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:COI reagarding President Obama. Apologies, I can't go into this now, I have a lot more on my plate then to worry about a link to an article. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 02:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, because hyperlinking it would take all of five seconds... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been said to you, but please calm down. This is only an article and we do not have in anyway political issues with Obama that affect the wiki and this article. I have went ahead and given appropriate links and unlinked in following occurrences, per WP:OVERLINK. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your attention to the matter, thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
The album, The Fame was clearly not critically praised. It had a aggregated score of 71% on Metacritic, which suggests a generally favorable album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekend56 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 71% on Metacritic denotes general praise from critics. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The semantics of the phrase, "critically praised" would suggest a higher score on Metacritic. The score is too low to indicate a critically praised album. Too many albums have scores which fall into that range. If it were above 80%, then such a phrase would seem legitimate. One cannot describe a score of 71% as an indication of critical praise. "generally favorable" or no comment at all would be more reasonable.Weekend56 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Praise" and "universal acclaim" (which is what Metacritic calls reception for albums that score an 81% or above) are not the same thing. The album did receive general praise from critics and there are sources to back it up. Sorry. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its a bit misleading to use that exact phrase, even more so considering its included in the introduction. I could very well describe any artist or band's first album to be "critically praised" with a 60% or just above rating on Metacritic. Any artist can be critically praised with an album above 60%. I feel 71% is just too low for the "critics to praise" recognition. I'm concerned because its in the intro, and thus misleads the reader into thinking that she on par with better artists who are in fact critically praised for their music. She is popular, and very influential, but her music is not known for its critical success.- Weekend56 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another note: "Generally favorable" and "praise" isn't the same thing either.- Weekend56 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well your feelings and opinions are frankly irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and we can verify that her work has been praised by critics. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay..... Verify it then. Wikipedia is obviously not using Metacritic as evidence of praise. Please can you show me some higher authority other than a quite democratic aggregate of critics ratings. My feelings and opinions, however justified, are apparently not enough. I'd also like to point out that those critics who gave her a 70% rating (according to Metacritic), did not praise her work at all. Please go ahead and check this out for yourself. Even The Phoenix, whose critic gave it its third highest score of 75% didn't have much to say, other than using "catchy songwriting and sheer high-in-the-club-banging-to-the-beat abandon" has his words of praise.41.146.230.94 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed that Rihanna's, Justin Bieber's and Taylor Swift's albums also attained similar scores. I don't see them getting the "critically praised" treatment. I guess their writers are a bit more sensible.41.146.230.94 (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Albums would normally get "generally positive reviews from critics" with that type of score. I have no idea how someone could get "critically praised" out of that.Weekend56 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because positive reviews are praise. I don't know why you two are trying to make it more than what it is. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The line "noted for its influences of synthpop music" is simply WP:OR, it's nowhere sourced in the article. Bluesatellite (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaga is referred to as "the eldest of two sisters." This is grammatically incorrect. The correct phrase, assuming Gaga has one younger sister, is "the elder of two sisters." If Gaga had two younger sisters the phrase would be "the eldest of three sisters". Please can this be changed? 109.153.10.197 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Jermani
 * Good catch. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

LGBT advocacy should be under Philanthropy
The definition of philanthropy, as per Wikipedia, is:
 * "the love of humanity"—love in the sense of caring for, nourishing, developing, or enhancing; humanity in the sense of "what it is to be human," or "human potential."
 * Her LGBT advocacy is doing this. Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is under Philanthropy. Note the outline at the top.  The main section is Philanthrophy.  Then due to the amount of info regarding this specific type of philanthropy, a subsection was created.  I should say someone has made it a subsection.  It may have happened after your post.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Updating
Shouldn't something be mentioned about her new book which she has created using photos Terry Richardson took of her? And the release of her Thanksgiving special (which she directed) and EP? And her Born This Way: The Remix album? And what about the news that she sent a message to a fan to show her support to his attempts at ending bullying? Source -. --90.208.237.214 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why has nothing been mentioned about the Marry The Night video and it's response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.237.238 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011
Please change Playing in Lower East Side bars like The Bitter End and the Mercury Lounge, the band developed a small fan base and caught the eye of music producer Joe Vulpis, to: Playing in bars like The Bitter End in Greenwich Village and the Mercury Lounge in the Lower East side, etc etc.

The Bitter End is most definitely not in the Lower East Side.

Bmgarner (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ C T J F 8 3  20:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead image
I don't see any problems with the reverted image. It is more recent (2011) and aside from showing Gaga without glasses and head cover, also reveals more of her, thus having more EV. Brand meister t   18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An obstructed view of her face (no hats/glasses etc.) is preferred with biographies. As long as its freely licensed, I go with the 2011 photo too. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Europride image is not as high quality as the CES image and Gaga is more known for having blonde hair than teal, thus the other image is more appropriate for the main infobox. A more thorough discussion should take place before the image is changed, so reverting back to the CES for now. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My vote goes for the Europride image. Her face is unobstructed (no sunglasses, hats, etc blocking it), it is from a more flattering angle, and is a much more recent representation of Lady Gaga's looks (ie. multi colored hair - Gaga's hair goes from teal to blonde to mint green to black to grey on a daily basis). Save-Me-Oprah (talk)  00:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaga is most well-known for having blonde hair. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that blonde is her natural color and agree with Save-Me-Oprah, she now changes the hair color so frequently (as well as her general appearance), that the green hair is not really an issue. Also on the CES image she looks much older imo. Brand meister  t   01:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current image added by Brandmeister is simply not of high-quality or resolution. There are tons of better mage than that one from the Monster Ball 2011 shows, that qualify as teh lead image better. Ignoring the discussions about the person being blond or brunette (doesn't matter for infobox), the image present in the article previously was of high-resolution and satisfied as an infobox image. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the image should stay as is, and not be changed to the Europride image. As said above, the Europride image is not of a good enough quality or resolution, and would actually detract from the article. Also, since Gaga is known for her crazy fashion, we should keep the current image as it shows her crazy hairstyle and other fashion choices. Just my two cents.. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd rather have an image where Lady Gaga is more identifiable, where in the CES image she looks much older than she actually is, although she has blond hair in the CES image, she still doesn't appear as recognizable as she should. -- Gourami Watcher    (Gulp) 23:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Lady Gaga Marry the Night PreGrammys.jpg What about this one? —DAP388 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A copyvio image for sure. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 02:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't utterly see a problem with the older one we had. (File:The Monster Ball - Poker Face revamped2-tweak.jpg) Shall we go back? I think we should. Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another page where...
fans and/or the artist's P.R. people are constantly editing and reverting edits. Anything that doesn't praise Lady Gaga is removed from this article. G90025 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY and care to read the article? Guess you haven't so... — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL; I went to this guy Legolas's user page after he claimed to be unbiased in contributing to this article, and right there on his page is an icon that says, "This user is a Lady Gaga fan." LOL!  So much for editing without bias!  And thanks for implying something which was obviously a lie.  Unbelievable, some of the people on here who think they can fool everyone.  G90025 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * O-M-G, I'm such a fail that I couldn't fool you to NOT see that I'm a Lady Gaga! Poor me, I should learn tricks-of-trade from you ain't it? Oh my we are all PR of the artist here, all of us! Run for your life right now!! Else you need to shove it up where the sun don't shine, sunshine! — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011
Please include "The devastation of being dropped by her first record label is expressed in the music video for the song, 'Marry the Night,' in which Lady GaGa recounts the traumatic experience and shows herself getting back on track. The video ends with her going to a scheduled appointment with Interscope Records, the record label that she is still signed to today." after the sentence "Devastated, Lady Gaga returned to the solace of the family home for Christmas and the nightlife culture of the Lower East Side." because it elaborates and expands on the event.

99.44.220.253 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is hypothetical and inspired, not true depiction. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do, however, like the idea of including a reference to Marry the Night here, instead of methodically listing it in the 2011-present section. A little rewording is all it needs. :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephen you can go ahead, but don't make it hypothetical. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 17:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stephenjamesx (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011
Please edit the following in the 2005-2007 Career beginnings section:

She also began a band called the Stefani Germanotta Band (SGBand) with some friends from NYU – guitarist Calvin Pia, bassist Eli Silverman, drummer Alex Beckham, and booking manager Frank Fredericks (musician) – in September of that year.[7]

citation here: http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/65127/index3.html

GraceAlden (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stephenjamesx (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Gaga"
Given that "Lady Gaga" is her stage name, but Lady is not used as her first name and Gaga is not used as her last name (unlike, for example, Elton John, Marilyn Manson, Cary Grant, or John Wayne), why does the article use "Gaga" as her last name? "Gaga did this", "Gaga did that", "Gaga said this". WP:LASTNAME (part of the BLP MOS) says People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. Using only "Gaga" is a practice followed by DJs, TV presenters and lazy journalists who use it as a colloquialism in an attempt to appeal to her fanbase who seem to have adopted it. For an encyclopedic entry that should be adopting a formal writing style of professional standards, it should be "Lady Gaga" throughout. Matthewedwards : Chat  21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree, but "Lady Gaga", as you have now changed it, comes across very repetitive and flowery. Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on the repetition. but that highlights a problem with the writing style of the article. All I did was add the "Lady" part of her stage name to the preexisting "Gaga"s. Not my fault there were so many of them. As for flowery, again, it's not our fault she chose a title of nobility as part of her stage name. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But "Gaga", the surname portion, is correctly used here as such, just as it is in the media generally.
 * She is not Lady Thatcher; the article should not be emphasizing a bogus self-aggrandizing title.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. The media, and Gaga herself, very often, if not most of the time, refers to her as "Gaga". We should not change this, as it almost qualifies for WP:PEACOCK, because Lady is a title once used for royal people in olden days, and to me, over and over, it sounds like it may qualify as puffery. gwickwire (talktome) (contribs!) 18:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It does sound like puffery, having to read LG LG LG continuously. And I do agree with the peacocky usage of it. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 18:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like either of you to point out, because I do not see it, where in WP:PEACOCK it says we can't use honorifics throughout an article. Not that it matters because in this case it isn't an honorific. Matthewedwards : Chat  04:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lady Thatcher is a Lady because she has been granted the title "Lady". It isn't part of her name. Lady Gaga has not be granted a title. "Lady Gaga" is Lady Gaga's full stage name. It should be used as ifif it was one word, Ladygaga because Lady isn't a title and it isn't a given name. And Gaga isn't a surname, so it wasn't being used correctly. Using Lady with Gaga doesn't imply she's a Lady. In this case, it isn't a title, and it doesn't imply any social heirarchy, any nobility or link to peerage or royalty. Matthewedwards : Chat  04:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "I agree on the repetition. but that highlights a problem with the writing style of the article." No, it doesn't, a search of this article shows that the name "Gaga" comes up 338 times, in Britney's article, her "Spears" appears 306 times, in Rihanna's article "Rihanna" appears 348 times. It isn't the repetition causing the floweriness, it's the improper use of a full name which creates awkward emphasis. Using the full name is rarely done over and over again if there are multiple clearly different proper nouns. (Even Snoop Dogg is referred to as "Snoop" in his article). Secondly, "it's not our fault she chose a title of nobility as part of her stage name", if we assume that "Lady" is being used as a title of nobility in her name, as you say, then "Gaga" would be her name, either first name as in Lady Diana or surname as in Lady Thatcher. In these women's articles, they are not constantly referred to with their title, their name attached to the title is used, which is what should be going on here. I'm sorry but this seems rather poorly thought out. This edit really needs to be reverted, it reads terribly and makes the writers of the article look pedantic and stylistically challenged. 82.33.34.230 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You summed it up! I do most certainly agree. 1) We should cut down our usage of "Gaga" and 2) we should revert back. Stephenjamesx (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The improper use of a full name"? I already pointed out in the MOS where it says to use both names when a recognizable surname does not exist. Show me any part of any MOS (WP:MOS or any of its subpages) that contradicts that guideline. Comparing the number of uses of "Lady Gaga" to "Spears" and "Rihanna" in those articles doesn't mean anything unless the word counts and the sentence structures are the same. I'll concede that using the full name is rarely done, but that doesn't mean never or not allowed. And in fact in this case we are explicititly told to do so. The guideline points to Snoop Dogg, and okay, the article might not follow it, but at the same time that article is nowhere near a Good Article or aiming for Featured Article (I'm assuming here that that's the direction for this page). Lady Diana's first name was not Lady so your comparison there is wrong; although, MOS:HONORIFIC does state that honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article, so if the articles about Diana or Thatcher had originally been written using the title like that, it would be incorrect to "fix" them. MOS:HONORIFIC also states The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that. (emphasis added). This means that it is perfectly okay for an article about a person who is a Lady or a Lord to use the title Lady or Lord throughout the article. Why would the MOS approve of an even suggest something flowery or peacocky? WP:PEACOCK doesn't even mention titles, so MOS:HONORIFIC is the only guideline to the use of Lady, and Lord. Surely, then, if it is okay for an article about a person who has been granted the title to use the title throughout, without it being peacocky, it must be okay to use it in an article where somebody uses the word as part of their name, "bogus self-aggrandizing" (-POV-, also noting that you didn't say this) or not.
 * If you don't like the MOS, seek to change the MOS instead, but right now the article follows current style standards and using Gaga by itself would not. Matthewedwards : Chat  04:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) WP:IAR. I think that common usage of "Gaga" as a surname in reliable sources is enough grounds to ignore the rule. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Like you said, The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that (emphasis changed). "Lady Gaga" was used in the initial reference and in the infobox, it does not need to be used throughout after this, according to MOS:HONORIFIC. While yes, MOS:HONORIFIC does state honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article, it also clearly states, before in fact, except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, which is what you did. You added the title of "Lady" to existing instances of the name "Gaga" when the use of the name "Gaga" was actually fine seeing as even you admitted that "Lady" was being used as a title of nobility.
 * I had actually explained why it was okay to treat "Gaga" as the name attached to a title but it seems you misunderstood my examples, so ask for you to please read what I put again: "If we assume that "Lady" is being used as a title of nobility in her name, as you say, then "Gaga" would be her name, either first name as in Lady Diana or surname as in Lady Thatcher". I never said Lady Diana's first name was "Lady", I said that Diana, her first name, was used with her title, but her title was not being repeated throughout the article. I then used Thatcher as an example of when last names are used with the title, to show that the name "Gaga", if "Lady" is being used as an honorific title is either her first name or surname, but ultimately not attached to the title. If you'd like a closer example, the Wikipedia page on Lord Voldemort refers to him as "Voldemort" and "Lord Voldemort". There is no clear first or last name, but it is clear that "Lord" is a title and isn't part of the name at all and does not need to be used. Like "Lady Gaga", "Lord Voldemort" is a fictional name, it's not hard to consider it as a sort of stage name, a title of nobility that is not been granted is being used, and people and the media would refer to "Lord Voldemort" as "Voldemort". The similarity between the two names are extensive, and thus the usage of them on Wikipedia should be too. Even if still you can't trust the logic I've laid out for you, please read Chase's comment above this post. 82.33.34.230 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding me. I quoted MOS:HONORIFIC because you people said that it was flowery and peacocky to add it here, and I used it to counter that adding it to an article of someone who has been granted the title doesn't violate WP:PEACOCK. Because it isn't an honorific title in the case of Lady Gaga, it doesn't apply here. so it does need to be used throughout here, because it is part of the name. Do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent applies only to honorifics, not names, so no, it is not what I did. I never admitted that Lady was being used as a title of nobility, in fact, I stated multiple times that it is being used as a name, not as a title. Gaga is not a name attatched to a title, because she has never been granted a title. I get what you're saying vis a vis Diana and Thatcher, but Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, and yes, it's clear that Lord is a title, not his first name. Lady isn't Lady Gaga's title, even if it is a "fictional name". Not sure about that one.. Stage name, certainly. As for Chase's comment, IAR states "prevents you from improving or maintaining", well it's not a maintanance issue, and while you people say it's an improvement to remove "Lady" because it's too repetitive and flowery and peacocky, my stance is still that if a real Lord or Lady article is allowed to use the title throughout, then it isn't flowery or peacocky, and so it certainly isn't when it is part of a name. If it's too repetitive, then "Gaga" alone is also too repetitive, which goes back to my other original statement that the article is poorly written anyway. I'll ignore IAR in this case :) Matthewedwards : Chat  02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the policy is generally applied to article titles, why shouldn't we go by WP:COMMONNAME and use "Gaga" as a surname as almost all reliable sources do? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (From an earlier post from you), "In this case, ["Lady"] isn't a title." Why not? You say it isn't because she didn't get it conventionally or officially, and while yes that does affect the social side of it, grammatically it is still a title and is being used as one. "It does need to be used throughout here, because it is part of the name." From the uses of reliable sources and the woman herself, this does not stand true. "Lady" is a title here, whether it was officially given to her or she took it to use with her stage name is irrelavent, it is a title. If she called herself "Mrs Gaga", regardless of the fact that she isn't married so isn't actually a "Mrs", we'd know that "Mrs" is a title, and would probably treat it like one. "A real Lord or Lady article is allowed to use the title throughout" Just because you can use it throughout doesn't mean you should. I sampled some articles of Lords and Ladies, and none of them used the title throughout. I honestly doubt that any article on a person with a notable title in their name actually uses that title every time they can use it. Using the title over and over again because you can doesn't make it more encyclopaedic, if anything it detracts from this as it emphasises the title needlessly and wrongfully. "You people say it's an improvement to remove "Lady" because it's too repetitive and flowery and peacocky", actually, my stance is repetition isn't the problem here, it's to do with how it reads, and due to the use of titles in the English language, which, as I state and stand by "Lady" is in this situation (and almost all situations unless specifically stated otherwise such as when it's a birth name). "If it's too repetitive, then "Gaga" alone is also too repetitive." You actually prove what I'm saying here if one uses a sort of reverse engineering: when "Gaga" alone is used it doesn't sound too repetitive, so thus the problem of floweriness isn't repetition at all, and all of the problem lies in the overuse of "Lady" based on the shaky premise that it's not a title (but really what else could it be?). 94.173.239.179 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With the backing of WP:IAR and WP:COMMONNAME, I think we should revert. Why can't we bend the rules? Gaga herself does. Stephenjamesx (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am casting my support for the arguments used by Matthewedwards as to why this article should not be referring to the singer as "Gaga". The term "Lady" is NOT an honorific, and purely a stage name.  Before this conversation can go any further, I think we need to agree on this pretense. Brian Reading (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)