Talk:Controversy of the Born This Way Ball

Thailand

There was some controversy over her "buy a fake Rolex" tweet in Thailand, but compared to the level of opposition she has received elsewhere, it doesn't seem notable to me. Here is a couple links to the story if you feel otherwise:

• http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/fake-355790-lady-gaga.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/05/lady-gaga-angers-thai-fans-with-fake-rolex-tweet/
• http://tribune.com.pk/story/383696/lady-gaga-refuses-to-tone-down-her-shows-manager/
• http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/295103/going-gaga-over-a-fake-rolex
  • Wowaconia (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't really think it has any baring on the controversy of the tour itself. She surely isn't helping her case though... — Statυs (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you propose a good standard. This is controversy, but one over her comments not over the nature of the show this tour is presenting - therefor it is outside the scope of this article. Wowaconia (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This police complaint made by Thai officials over her "offensive" and "inappropriate" use of their flag while wearing a bikini may qualify. http://www.eonline.com/news/lady_gaga_takes_heat_from_thai/323721

Any consensus?

-Wowaconia (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

image

Gaga is not performing "Born This Way" in the picture, she's performing "Hair".teman13 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed caption due to Refs stating she spoke of controversy before playing "Hair" on piano (which is pictured), and that she sang "Born This Way", in "a full-length yellow dress inspired by the Philippines' national costume as she and a dance crew gyrated for the song" (which isn't the color she is wearing in photo).Wowaconia (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave the political details out of this (Indonesia)

Hi! The text seems very nice, but what the hell is a paragraph that big doing in a Lady Gaga article? The evolution of the political movements' influence should be kept out in a separate article, and only a short summary of it should be hanging down here. This article is simply flooding. -- Frous (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't strictly about Lady Gaga but about the Controversy, you can't have a controversy without two sides. The motivations of her opponents both religious and political are therefore important in understanding the controversy. --Wowaconia (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition her opponents recently murdering members of a minority group whose existence they protested, the severe beating of a gay rights advocate, and the throwing of urine on another religious minority group they didn't like (all while the police did nothing) indicates a level of real danger to Gaga that would seem to be informative to the general reader. --Wowaconia (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is little more than a collection of quotations from individuals who dislike Germanotta. I'm not convinced that this article needs to exist at all, as it seems there are a few key events that can be covered in the main article without all of this other attack rubbish, but certainly it needs serious work if it is to continue to exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the article is cited by notable news servies and includes quotes from notable international figures. I understand that her fans wish the whole world was in love with her, but the fact that those resorting to tyranny and terrorism are against her should be seen as proof of her importance. An importance no longer just limited to being a performer but as someone whose philospical stand about human freedom affects different populations across the world. The information cited here shows the full impact of her stance and would overwhelm discussions about playlists, costume changes, back up singers, etc. Her tour is an production of her artistic skill, in a similar manner the book The Satanic Verses was an artistic expression of Salman Rushdie, the book has its own article and so does the worldwide reaction to it The Satanic Verses controversy. This article and the one on the tour function in the same manner.

Her message is that homosexuals should be seen as just a variant of humanity, a minority variant but one that is completely normal like red hair, left-handedness, or green eyes. She encourages homosexuals to resist cultural pressures to feel shame about themselves, rather calling them to take joy in their existence. In America this may seem like no big deal, but if you search for the word homosexual on the page Use of capital punishment by country you will find that people in other countries are still being butchered by their governments for their sexual orientation. So taking her stance worldwide isn't without controversy or without bravery. This wasn't just a handful of people, their were thousands of people coming into the street threatening to kill her if she came off the plane - I fail to see how the facts around this should be regulated into a sentence on the page about the tour right after the information on how she used a wheel chair and a motorcycle as props and wore a yellow dress.

--Wowaconia (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't listen to her music at all, either to appreciate or to condemn it, so the idea that I'm making these comments because I either want to hide the fact that some dislike her or that opposition to her tour has been linked to violence is silly. I was about to elaborate on my position, but then I realized you did not respond at all to the content of my original comment, so it would be a waste of time. Please deal with the things I have already mentioned, eg. the quotefarm and undue weight. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

How is the article not coming from a Neutral Point of view? Notable people and groups organized against her are quoted in context. Her side of the story and reaction are quoted from reliable media sources. National context on the state of affairs in Indonesia, the area with the most strident reaction is also given. Again I point you to the example of The Satanic Verses articles where large amounts of information about those opposing the work are given along with Rushdie's comparatively scant responses.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Even in that article, which is obviously much more historically significant based on discussion in reliable sources, a smaller percentage of the article consists of attack quotes. I recommend, again, that you consider summarizing the content in the main article, where it belongs, and trimming/summarizing the quotes here. Otherwise, it will become necessary to nominate the page for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning deletion, I refer you to the top of this talk page: A consensus of editors have already addressed the issue:

"This page was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep"

I also refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the guideline holds that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." At no point does this article say that Lady Gaga "taints young people" or ""delights the devil" which would break neutrality, nor does it belittle the beliefs of those who are making these claims. It merely quotes them in context and gives her replies and those of her spokespeople. Again where is the violation of neutrality?

Concerning the question of "historically significant" the issue passes wikipedia's notability standards, see Wikipedia:Notability, and was heavily covered by the international press, involved heads of states, political groups, religious and terrorist organizations, and thousands of people.

I understand that in your opinion you think that this article does not measure up to your standards, but that is not the same as measuring up to wikipedia standards, please cite those.

--Wowaconia (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and? If it's a bad article, and it is, one sparsely attended deletion discussion that barely eked out a keep won't protect it.

Please refer to WP:Criticism, which elaborates the NPOV issues discussed in WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality. If the problem were that we actually stated that Lady Gaga did X, Y, and Z, solving it would be trivial. The problem is the disproportionate inflation of the negative reactions to the tour; disproportion because when you look at the body of sources, many or most give little or no mention to the controversy.

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Concering WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; it isn't original research so it doesn't violate the ban on Journalism. It not merely News reportage as it places the reaction to the tour in its political, historical, and religious context of the nations involved and is even cited by notables as an event marking a significant shift in the political power structure of Indonesia. It is not a tour diary as a consensus of editors held that information should be limited to protests on religious grounds of the tour rather than protests of her individual actions such as her statements in Thailand.

If you hold that it includes reactions from protesting citizens who are not notable that could be reasonably argued. If you're maintaining that the events are not notable and do not merit a wiki-article, such a position does not seem reasonable within Wikipedia's criteria.

--Wowaconia (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS isn't about avoiding original research, but about considering the enduring and encyclopedic notability of events. Being an encyclopedia, we don't have to include every event that might have appeared in a newspaper article that was here one day and gone the next, nor every detail from such an article. Does that make things any clearer? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. I don't understand why you think this has no continuing significance, especially when this specific incident is cited by an analyst for International Crisis Group as an indicator of the rising power of the terrorist linked political group the I.D.F. in Indonesia.--Wowaconia (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Indicator =/= lasting significance or effect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Agence France-Presse story had a dead link, which I have replaced in the article and provide here as well (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/lady-gaga-indonesian-hardliners-latest-victory/520722) it begins with the statement "Lady Gaga's decision to cancel the Indonesian leg of her world tour due to threats by Muslim hardliners highlights how groups pushing a strict view of Islam are growing increasingly powerful, analysts say." Is this not saying that its historically significant because it was a successful political gambit by groups like the I.D.F. which has raised their level of political importance in Indonesia at the expense of the democratically elected government?--Wowaconia (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The rising power of the IDF is notable - satellite events do not therefore become notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How would one prove the thesis that the IDF was rising in power without citing incidents that mark this? Further, Lady Gaga has stated her intent to return to Indonesia, so the events explained here remain notable as context should that happen or might be cited as why she doesn't fulfil that promise in future tours and travels.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A - One would perhaps cite them in the IDF article, etc. B - your proposal to keep the article because of what it might prove about future events falls foul both of WP:NOR and of WP:CRYSTAL. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The standard for original research and unverifiable speculation is for articles not for positions on the talk page. The article is limited to verifible sources citing notable figures such as heads of state, religious leaders, and an internationally known performer and her spokespeople.

Your comment does make me realize that as the discussion is about the notability standards I should limit my responses to that. The standards about notability do say that an article's notablity can be reevaluated as time passes. As these events were found notable by newspapers, heads of state, religious leaders, and human rights experts in 2012, and as it remains 2012 at the time of this discussion, I find your position that it must be reevalutated due to the passage of time premature.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I point out WP:EFFECT "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. ...This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." I have cited human rights workers that hold that due to the use of the event of the controversy by the IDF there will be a lasting effect on the Indonesian society.

The example cited by Wikipedia is the article Murder of Adam Walsh, you will note the event has its own page rather than being merged with the article on his father John Walsh who became famous for anti-crime activism (its mentioned but for more depth people are directed to the main article). His father's activism included advocating for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (which also has a seperate article that the murder was not merged with). It would make sense to follow this example and place a sentence or two about the controversy on the IDF page with a link to this main article.--Wowaconia (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up here. The sources don't indicate that Lady Gaga's tour influenced the rise of the IDF, but rather than the rise of the IDF influenced the response to her tour. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"the rise of the IDF" can not be described as "An event" (which is what the standard states). To speak of "the rise of the IDF" would be to enage in analyzation of a series of events one of which is the controversy.

This is how the outcome of the controversy is cited by the Human Rights group the Setara Institute in their report Human Rights Enforcement Performance Index which they summerized (at http://www.setara-institute.org/en/content/setara-says-indonesia-failing-improve-rights) stating:

"In terms of freedom of expression, the index only rose to 3.06 from 2.50 in 2011. Ismail [Hasani, a senior Setara researcher] cited the ban on a Lady Gaga concert in Jakarta, harassment of journalists, the closure by police of a book discussion by Canadian writer and liberal Islam advocate Irshad Manji, and attacks on human rights activists by security officers as evidence of continued curtailing of freedom of expression in Indonesia over the past year."

The news of this report was also picked up by the newspaper the Jakarta Globe (at http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/setara-says-indonesia-failing-to-improve-rights/559930).

Everything you're citing continues to indicate that the rise of the IDF influenced the response to Lady Gaga's tour, not the other way around. That's what it means when the source says that the report cited the concert ban as evidence of limits on free expression - the concert ban did not cause the limits on free expression. WP:EFFECT is not demonstrated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The wiki-standard uses the word "event" the controversy and its outcome are events, your claim that "the rise of the IDF" is an event is unfounded. I cited the human rights group because their logic is the same as wikipeida's - to avoid being mere conjecture, one needs to cite events as evidence of social trends not the other way around which is what you are arguing.

In the sources provided that which is being pointed to as evidence of "continued curtailing of freedom of expression" are events, including the ban that was the result of the controversy. The "rise of the IDF" is not pointed to, that group is not even mentioned in the articles. Rather the human rights group takes issue with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for not taking effective action against the events. As the results of this controversy is prominently listed among failures a human rights group is taking the leader of a sovereign country of over 240 million people to task for, I do not see how the event is not notable.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many more times or in how many more ways I can say this. The notability of the event is not demonstrated because it did not have a lasting effect or coverage. It did not cause these social trends. No sources claim that it did. If you persist in refusing to hear this, this will just have to go to a wider forum. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Its odd that you accuse me of breaking the WP:IDHT standard when it states "long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I did not realize that you were the entire community of editors, and what other topic have you suggested we move on to? You initially raised the question of neutrality. Looking at those standards and the notability standards, I was persuaded by your concerns and agreed that the article could be improved by removing quotes from protestors who have no notability other than participating in the protest. Rather than "move on" with this consensus you continue to persist in calling for its deletion (despite the fact that this discussion is taking place long after a consensus of editors previously voted to keep the page). Please be careful when making violation claims about other editors, otherwise it appears as if your accusing them of bad faith WP:AOBF.

The standard says "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." I don't know if I have been unclear but the word I am trying to get you to address is "event", the banning of the show was an event. Neither "the rise of the IDF" nor "the continued curtailing of freedom of expression" are events. Under the logic your purposing it was not the event of the controversy and ban of the the tour that had any effect on Indonesia but "the continued curtailing of freedom of expression" somehow becomes an event and that is what causes the effect that is the controversy (which apparently can no longer can be called an event). Please discuss what your definition of "event" is and why you believe I am mistaken that "the rise of the IDF" or "the continued curtailing of freedom of expression" are social trends not events.--Wowaconia (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)