Talk:Lady Gaga

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Featured articleLady Gaga is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starLady Gaga is the main article in the Overview of Lady Gaga series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2018.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 2, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 23, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 4, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 9, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
May 16, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
August 2, 2016Featured topic candidatePromoted
October 14, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 28, 2017, March 28, 2024, and March 28, 2025.
Current status: Featured article

Record sales

[edit]

Gaga's record sales are reported at 170 million. The 124 million figure is years old and barely covers Gaga's digital single sales, let along her other record sales. Why was this reverted?

Sources:

Please update this to make this article more accurate. SpearsRR (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The 124 million claimed sales are from two reliable sources, dated 2021 and 2022 so they pretty much reflect the current number of records sold by Gaga. There is a discussion in this talk page regarding why the 170+ million claimed sales is considered inflated. You are there so you already know the explanation about this matter. 143kittypurry (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is you saying you "don't feel" Lady Gaga sold the reported sales that I've listed several more recent sources for above, while referencing certs that are incorrectly calculated on that same article. SpearsRR (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then correct those "incorrectly calculated" certs on the article. It's up to you to correct them, not me. 143kittypurry (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2025

[edit]

Hey! I would like to edit the Lady Gaga article to change the picture of her from the Joe Biden event in 2021. It’s been there for 4 years and it’s in need of an update. That’s not her appearance anymore. BeyonceKnowlesFan123473 (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A change of photo would require a new photo that is free for us to use. This means it must be explicitly licensed freely (Commons definition, see COM:L). Unless you can find such a free photo, we cannot just change it to any random photo you can find online. Thanks, WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 06:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a sourced sentence from the final paragraph in the lead section

[edit]

I'm surprised that the sentence "She has spoken of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after being raped at the age of 19" has been removed from the final paragraph of the lead section which mentions her activism on mental health awareness.

BBC News reported (in the link below) that she suffered a breakdown after the rape led to a pregnancy and that the trauma had changed her as a person, and would never leave her.

Lady Gaga had a 'psychotic break' after sexual assault left her pregnant


The BBC News reference above states that she was still suffering from the effects of being raped when she won an Oscar in 2019 for A Star Is Born, years later.

According to Lady Gaga this is a lifelong trauma that she suffered. It would "never leave her" she said. Is a lifelong trauma after being raped not notable enough to have just one sentence about this in the lead section?

Why is it important enough to include in the lead section that Gaga's philanthropy and activism focus on mental health awareness and LGBTQ rights and supporting the wellness of young people, but it is apparently not noteworthy enough to include a brief mention after that about a lifelong trauma she has had?

In my view, the sentence is appropriate to include as per WP:LEAD and it doesn't take up a lot of space. Just one sentence in the lead.

Also please see the advice page at Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary which states: "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a questionable prior edit than to revert it entirely. Your bias should be toward keeping as much of the prior edit as possible."

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, she's never mentioned any connection between the incident and those other things, and either way gets more attention for helping others than for what once happened to her. It therefore is rather presumptuous to say they're linked in the way you seem to be suggesting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The important point is not whether there might or might not be a link between the breakdown and trauma she had and her activism focus on mental health awareness. The important point is that a reliable source is available from BBC News to state she was still suffering from the effects of being raped when she won an Oscar in 2019 for A Star Is Born, more than a decade after the rape. Clearly it has had a major impact on her life. She herself has stated it would "never leave her".
So I'd welcome the input of other editors for their views on the question – Is a lifelong trauma after being raped not notable enough to have just one sentence about this somewhere in the lead section? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the fact that this had a massive effect on her personally, but in the lead we tend to focus on a person as a public figure and what they are widely known for. The lead is just a summary of the entire article. If someone was a victim of sexual abuse and that experience heavily influenced their involvement in say the Me Too movement, and they were widely associated with their activism towards it then that for sure would grant a mention in the lead. But Gaga’s activism has primarily focused on the LGBT community throughout her career. While she spoke about her abuse and trauma publicly and how it affected her life and her as a person, it’s never been the central focus of her activism. So I agree with SNUGGUMS’s removal of it from the lead. ArturSik (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2025

[edit]

Change "one the best selling ng" to "one of the best selling". (Typo) 2600:8805:1A00:84D0:583:1B63:C6EE:1088 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks for pointing that out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other Inspirations

[edit]

At her iHeartRadio acceptance speech, it seems she namechecked a few artists that inspired her that aren't listed here yet: Carole King and Duke Ellington.

https://variety.com/2025/music/news/doechii-lady-gaga-taylor-swift-artist-of-year-iheartradio-music-awards-1236340046/

https://deadline.com/2025/03/lady-gaga-iheartradio-music-awards-win-lgbtq-community-1236329131/ Cahlin29 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The official Mayhem Rio numbers

[edit]

A couple months ago, there was a general consensus to use the 2.1 million attendance number as that was the reported figure of the public Rio City Hall. Now, I've seen that the number was changed to 2.5 million, with all the related articles using the Guinness World Records as a source, despite Perennial sources stating that the GWR is an unreliable source to use when it comes to making claims. The sudden change was not discussed on any talk page that I checked.

Furthermore, two days ago, the BBC put out a report that makes a strong claim that the 2.1 number was inflated and that it is physically impossible for the beach to hold that many people. Given that the BBC is a very reliable source (more reliable than GWR at least), I have reverted all figures back to 2.1 and added an EFN noting that the claim of 2.1 million people was likely inflated, per the BBC. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayor of Rio has shown the workings their estimate for the Copacabana beach show crowd. The BBC clickbait article does not account of crowd flow, it estimates the crowd similar to that at a festival or closed off event with a static attendance. They have no primary sources, and instead use an extrapolated area and an admittedly invented crowd density calculation.
https://x.com/eduardopaes/status/1945131355022499928 SpearsRR (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful jumping to labeling articles as "clickbait" especiallyfrom sources generally known to be reliable as you may be seeing it from a non NPOV.
A professor from The University of Sao Paulo also alleged that it is impossible for 2.1 million people to fit on the Copacabana Beach with a "comfortable" fit of 6 people per sqm netting 1.2 million people and the maximum possible crowd density only netting 1.5 million. It isn't just the BBC who doubted the claim. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So effectively there are those who doubt the capacity of the venue generally. Why is this not therefore levied against all five Copacabana beach entires on this list, two of which claiming 1-1.4m+ more concert goers than Gaga's show? SpearsRR (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to find reliable source, high quality articles that question those entries. Then we can have a discussion about changing them. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns about using Guinness as a source, but removing the 2.5 million figure downplays the broader consensus across multiple reliable outlets. That number was reported by Billboard, TV Globo, Multishow, and most importantly, Mayor Eduardo Paes, who publicly explained how the estimate was calculated. Guinness did not originate the number — they simply echoed what had already been reported by official sources.
The BBC article raises valid questions, but it's a single, later piece based on speculative calculations. It doesn't directly disprove the figures provided by the city, which organized the event. I suggest keeping the 2.5 million figure with proper attribution to the Mayor’s office and contemporary media, and adding an explanatory note mentioning that the BBC later questioned the plausibility. This would better reflect the full range of reporting without giving undue weight to a single critical source. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a strong argument to be made for broad editorial consensus at the moment. Some publications have reported 2 million, some are using 2.1 or 2.2 (such as CNN and the Guardian source I used) and it's also worthy to note that both the local language sources on the Todo Mundo article are using 2.1, despite the article prose saying 2.5 and only using Guinness as a source for that once again.
I'm on my phone right now so I can't link everything until I get back to the computer, but even the BBC when they initially reported on the Mayhem festival said "more than 2 million people", not necessarily a specific number, just a range.
I think if more Brazil shows for global artists like this are going to continue forward, on principle, sticking to the official government figures would always be reliable. After all, the "most viewed concerts" page notes that many figures are exaggerated by the media. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply — totally fair points. Still, I believe the government figure is in fact the 2.5 million estimate, as stated by Mayor Eduardo Paes himself and reported by outlets like Billboard, Multishow, and TV Globo, who directly quote or reference the city’s numbers. If some local articles are using 2.1M, it might reflect earlier estimates or cautious rounding, but the most widely cited and explicitly attributed number from the Mayor’s office is 2.5M.
Given this, and since Guinness is not the originator here, I’d support presenting 2.5 million with attribution to the Mayor of Rio, followed by a note explaining the variation, including that some sources report lower figures and that the BBC later questioned the plausibility.
That way, we preserve the official estimate and reflect the nuance — without arbitrarily prioritizing a single source or assuming the highest figure is automatically inflated. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if Guinness World Records is considered an unreliable source for difficult-to-verify figures like crowd sizes, then its inclusion in other articles involving similar records should be reconsidered. Otherwise, applying that standard selectively in this case undermines consistency and opens the door to editorial bias. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record (no pun intended :P), that perennial sources link actually says Guinness "should not be used to establish notability", which isn't synonymous with being untrustworthy overall and these things shouldn't be conflated with one another. As for concerns with specific claims for their records, those should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We should review evidence for other claims instead of simply assuming Guinness is never usable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Where does the Mayor say the figure is 2.5 million again? In the tweet that SpearsRR posted in this thread he said "In the space that you can fit 600,000 Brits, you can fit 2.2 million Brazilians."
I have no issue with replacing GWS as a source with other more reliable notable sources. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Eduardo Paes X account and all news sources and I still can't find any source of him or the Rio City stating the attendees were 2.5 million. I found this article but that's about it. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2.5 million figure was not only certified by the Guinness World Records, it's mentioned by Variety (https://variety.com/2025/music/news/lady-gaga-free-concert-rio-copacabana-beach-draws-record-breaking-2-5-million-people-1236386386/), Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-copacabana-beach-rio-concert-record-breaking-1235961924/), The Hollywood Reporter (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-news/lady-gaga-record-breaking-concert-brazil-mayhem-on-beach-1236206853/), Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-record-breaking-crowd-bio-brazil-copacabana-beach-1235331033/), The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/04/lady-gaga-concert-attack-plot-brazil-rio/), Pollstar/Live Nation (https://news.pollstar.com/2025/05/05/lady-gaga-sets-record-with-2-5-million-attendees-for-rio-concert/), Consequence (https://consequence.net/2025/05/lady-gaga-copacabana-beach-brazil/) and Le Mond (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/05/brazil-arrests-two-over-alleged-bomb-plot-at-lady-gaga-concert-in-rio_6740911_4.html), just to name a few. Rio City Hall initially estimated 2.1 million and this is already mentioned in the notes. The 660,000 number posted by BBC is just too discrepant, there's no other source backing it and the Rio mayor already debunked them. Arlandria Ff (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Pollstar also reported the 2.5 million number. You really can't get more reliable than that when it comes to live audience numbers. There's also an official Live Nation Instagram post confirming the same figure, so GWR is definitely not originating a random number. This BBC article months later seems like a complete outlier. I vote for the page to mention the reported attendance of 2.1 million people by Rio City Hall, other international media outlets (including Pollstar/Live Nation/Billboard) estimating an attendance of 2.5 million people, and Guinness World Records certifying the latter. Debyf (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, my point about there not being broad editorial consensus still exists, because the 2.1 million figure was reported by The Guardian, CNN, Billboard Canada, Sky News, with Vulture estimating a range "between 2.1 million and 2.5 million."
@Arlandria ff:, you may be conflating two different points here. While the Rio mayor has posted a response to the BBC news article, Mayor Paes still maintains that the final figure was 2.2 million, not 2.5. That's a difference of 300,000 people. I never said that the BBC article should be the one used for the figures, I said for the figures that the official City Hall who was the one running and managing the event should be the premier authority on the numbers, not third party media figures who weren't involved, with the List of most attended concerts noting that the media frequently exaggerates attendance numbers. There also is another source with a USP professor doing their own calculation and questioning the numbers that were released for this concert.
My point is that the government figures who ran and managed the event are the most authorized to report the numbers, not the Guinness World Records, who have questionable credibility and are not a strong figure for notability. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Debyf:, I sort of agree with your compromise, I think that the page should display 2.1 million but with the 2.5 million in a Template:Efn with the sources. I think that the GWR source should be stripped because of its shaky credibility but the other sources should be kept. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Live Nation is as much of a concert organizer as the Rio City Hall, and they confirmed the 2.5 million figure as posted above. Actually on the official poster (https://www.instagram.com/p/DGVpntjph3_/) Live Nation is the one mentioned as a organizer, and the Rio City Hall/Riotur only as a supporter (“incentivador” in Portuguese). Pollstar also mentioned 2.5 million, and the Variety article said “according to concert organizers” as well. What makes all of Live Nation/Pollstar/Billboard/Variety/The Hollywood Reporter/Rolling Stone/The Washington Post less reliable than The Guardian/CNN/Billboard Canada (lol)? Your bias is showing and you just conveniently want the lower number to be displayed on the page. Arlandria Ff (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the page just stay as it is right now? 2.5 million seems to be number with the widest coverage, including undisputed reliable outlets (Billboard, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter etc) that are not using Guinness as the primary source like it was implied. All those articles listed here are from May, before Guinness even certified anything. Also Pollstar is basically the concert industry's leading business trade publication and they confirmed that number. Debyfann (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was Live Nation/Ticketmaster organizing and handling the logistics of free show for the local Todo Mundo no Rio? In addition, a promotional social media post is not a reliable high quality source, if it should come from Live Nation a website press release would be a more appropriate source than Instagram.
Can you please stop with the uncollaborative behavior? First you have thrown aspersions and personal attacks at me, then edit-warred to restore your version of the page, and now you're accusing of me "wanting the lower number" when all I'm looking for is consistency in source usage. The own mayor of Rio said the figures were 2.2 million when people here are insisting that the Mayor's official figure was 2.5. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Mayhem Rio numbers

[edit]

I let the discussion cool off for a bit as it was getting heated and thought of the best possible compromise that still stays within WP:NPOV. This is my proposed neutral solution, in broad terms:

Lady Gaga performed a free concert at Copacabana Beach, Rio de Janeiro, which became the most-attended concert by a female artist with an estimated audience of over 2.1 million people.[a]

PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to make sense, the 'over 2.1 million' seems to satisfy the controversy. IndrasBet (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EFN reads: Local authorities and government figures, including the Mayor of Rio Eduardo Paes, estimated an audience of 2.1 to 2.2 million. However, Pollstar, Billboard, Rolling Stone, and multiple other reliable sources have reported an audience of 2.5 million. This would be a neutral statement of the situation with sources accurately backing both viewpoints up.

Notes

  1. ^ Local authorities and government figures, including the Mayor of Rio Eduardo Paes, estimated an audience of 2.1 to 2.2 million.[1][2] However, Pollstar, Billboard, Rolling Stone, and multiple other reliable sources have reported an audience of 2.5 million. [3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Paes, Eduardo [@eduardopaes] (July 15, 2025). "Sabem de nada! Não entendem de Rio! No mesmo espaço que cabem 660 mil britânicos, cabem 2.2 milhões de brasileiros animados e felizes! E calientes!" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  2. ^ Torres, Mauricio; Ulloa, Christopher (2025-05-04). "2.1 million person crowd estimated at free Lady Gaga concert on Rio's Copacabana beach". CNN. Retrieved 2025-08-10. Guests started queuing from early Saturday morning to secure a good spot for the show, which is paid for by local authorities. Organizers said about 2.1 million revelers were estimated to have been in the crowd.
  3. ^ "Lady Gaga Sets Record With 2.5 Million Attendees For Rio Concert - Pollstar News". 2025-05-05. Retrieved 2025-08-10.
  4. ^ Peters, Mitchell (2025-05-04). "Lady Gaga Draws 2.5 Million Fans to Record-Breaking Free Concert at Rio's Copacabana Beach". Billboard. Retrieved 2025-08-10.
  5. ^ Kreps, Daniel (2025-05-04). "Lady Gaga Performs to Record-Breaking Crowd at Rio's Copacabana Beach". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2025-08-10.
  • Support as proposer. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it seems quite fair to use a note for acknowledging the different numbers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we namecheck Pollstar et al, when they make it very clear they’re just repeating what they’ve been told by her team? Billboard: “Approximately 2.5 million people attended the free Copacabana Beach show, according to Gaga’s representatives.” Pollstar: “Lady Gaga … delivered … free concert … with an estimated 2.5 million in attendance making it the highest-attended concert by a female artist in history, according to promoter Live Nation.” I suggest we put her team’s claim first within the footnote—and describe it as such—followed by the mayor’s claim as the (presumably?) more reliable number. — HTGS (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would her team know about the official numbers more than the government organizers who were the ones behind the event? I agree about describing the 2.5 million number as coming from Gaga's group herself but wouldn't the City Hall's more reliable number be accurate since they're the ones hosting Todo Mundo de Rio? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. We’re on the same page. I’m only talking about reversing order within the footnote. — HTGS (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When did lady gaga release mayhem

[edit]

What month 80.195.200.197 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This past March, and that already is noted within the "Joker: Folie à Deux and Mayhem" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misplaced Google/ChatGPT query of the type talk pages are spammed with by the dozens every day. (If it were related to improving the article, it would -- as you mentioned -- say so, and not be about something clearly and obviously in it.) Just delete it per WP:NOTFORUM, don't respond. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]