Talk:Lady Gaga

Updated high quality portrait of her dated April 2026.

An new high quality image on Flickr of her by Melissa Forte. I initially added it but it was reverted for some reason. It is a super high quality portrait of her and a very recent take from April of 2026.

A. Original image (January 2021)

Synth Legend (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I support this. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If an admin can comfirm its license status, would be fine to go. However, the inaguration performance was a big milestone for her, so I would then consider placing that image in the main text. Sricsi (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. The license is a CC BY 4.0 which allows commercial use. Synth Legend (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can also see that. An admin has not yet reviewed your upload, though. A cropped version should be used for the infobox, but it cannot be cropped via the CropTool if it's yet to be reviewed. Sricsi (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank goodness. Trillfendi (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I reached out to the author of the picture - press@ellieforte.com - as the Flickr account looked suss - created very recently, imagines they uploaded don’t have Metadata. And as expected it was not her who uploaded this picture to Flickr, somebody is posing as her and stealing her work. She will be reporting the account so it will probably be taken down soon. ArturSik (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a closer look - indeed it looked too good to be true. Sricsi (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow didn't know. Thanks for researching! Synth Legend (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Identifying rapist

Hello!

I recently added this segment but it was reverted:

"She has chosen not to publicly identify her rapist because she does not want to face him again".

While reading the article, I thought it was interesting that her rapist is unknown, so I Googled the topic and found the reason why she has chosen not to identify him. As a lay reader, I found this illuminating, because there are multiple different reasons she could have chosen not to identify him. I thought this segment answered a question that other readers might have as well.

Pinging @Sricsi, as I'd love to hear your thoughts. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for explaining your reasoning. I understand why you found the detail useful, but I don’t think the article needs to explain why she has chosen not to identify him. To me, it feels more like an ancillary detail unless reliable secondary sources specifically discuss that decision as significant. That said, I’m happy to hear what others think as well. Sricsi (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It ultimately is Gaga's personal choice on whether to give any names. Unless there's some sort of controversy over choosing to not identify someone (which so far hasn't been the case), I don't see why it would be worth delving far into her reasons to not say who that was. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Both of these replies make sense. Thanks for the input! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Original research

It seems to me that some segments of the page contain original research, such as these:

On her role in A Star is Born: Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian wrote that her ability to be "part ordinary person, part extraterrestrial celebrity empress functions at the highest level". Stephanie Zacharek of Time felt she gave a "knockout performance" and found her to be "charismatic" without her usual makeup, wigs and costumes."

On the film's soundtrack: Mark Kennedy of The Washington Post called it a "five-star marvel", while Ben Beaumont-Thomas of The Guardian thought it contained "instant classics" showcasing Gaga's "emotional might".

Nearby on the page is this sentence: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the critical consensus describes Gaga as "appealing" in her role". This sentence summarizes many reviews, whereas both segments above seem to be cherrypicked reviews that may not reflect widespread opinion among critics. This would amount to original research, and I'm wondering if these segments should be removed. Please offer your thoughts. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the cherrypicked reviews. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a WP:OR issue. Original research occurs when editors introduce their own analysis, interpretations, or conclusions that are not stated in reliable sources. The material in question was attributed directly to published reviews from reliable sources; no novel conclusion was being drawn by Wikipedia editors.

If there is a concern that the selected reviews give undue weight to certain opinions, that would be a content-balance issue under WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE rather than WP:OR. Whether the cited reviewers are sufficiently representative of the broader critical reception is a matter for discussion.

I am also concerned that the material was removed before any consensus emerged on this talk page. The burden for removing long-standing, properly sourced content is not simply that an editor believes it may be "cherry-picked". If there is genuine concern about due weight, a better approach would be to discuss alternative wording or additional sources that provide a broader overview of the critical reception.

At this point, I think it would be best to wait for additional editors to comment before making substantive changes. That would allow the community to determine whether there is actually a due-weight concern and, if so, what the most appropriate remedy would be. Sricsi (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. Yes, I am concerned that it is a content-balance issue, giving undue weight to opinions that may not be representative of the broader critical view. Thank you for correcting my error in describing my concern, and I apologize for my overly bold removal of content. I look forward to the thoughts of other editors. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Gaga's first born

Many media outlets have reported that Lady Gaga has welcomed a child with fiancé Michael Polansky? Although it was Page Six that made this sudden announcement, are they a credible source for this? Images were also shared from their part. Is it Juan? (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Page Six is most certainly not credible, so their word alone is hard to take at face value. It's best to wait until the couple says something on the matter before inserting into Wikipedia pages unless their reps, friends, or family do so first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Someone posted a paparazzi photo of her carrying a swaddled newborn baby (its face pixelated of course), but these days you never know... in 2 days someone could say "that's actually her niece or nephew." Trillfendi (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

The ambiguity of who got swaddled is partially why I hesitate to insert out-of-the-blue claims of having a child, especially when there was no prior announcement of even expecting one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:47, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this People article enough for it to be added? I think a lot of the other sources were just recycling what Page Six had announced without any confirmation... Rfl0216 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Not in this instance because People is only giving flimsy-at-best attributions of unnamed "sources" with no indication of who it could be in what you provided and another piece it links to. This suspicious lack of transparency on their part is a red flag, and should be taken with a grain of salt. If instead we had an article from them (or another publication) noting it was a representative, family member, friend, coworker, etc., then that's easier to take at face value. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Why no “Personal life” section?

Just asking ~2026-49417-59 (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Because that likely would become bloated with trivia, fancruft, and gossip. Not worth the risk here. Furthermore, when Gaga often has worked professionally with partners, it might introduce redundant mentions of what they collaborated on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2026

I would like to add her daughter's information. Wikibianca 23 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Too vague of a request, and we don't even have any formal confirmation yet (no TMZ and Page Six don't count when both are unreliable). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Is gaga’s daughter going to be added?

Is her daughter going to be added? What I mean is by the children section. Eg: Children : 1. Just a question. Alinoraxox (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Not without credible confirmation of a birth even happening, which so far hasn't been provided. Most publications that say one took place unfortunately are basing their word off of untrustworthy things like Page Six or TMZ when not just giving flimsy and suspicious attributions of nameless "sources" with no indication of who they might be (the lack of transparency comes off as a cover-up for pulling claims out of nowhere and either way makes it harder to take at face value). That simply isn't adequate for adding here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)