to Gaga, God, and the gays

Lady Gaga – 23 – female – NYC

As a celebrity, Lady Gaga has been subject to many rumours and hearsay about her past and her personal life.  The latest widespread speculation is that she is a hermaphrodite.  Really?

Taking a look at the Lady Gaga Wikipedia article, there’s no mention of the rumour…or any rumour about the artist for that matter.

The great thing about Wikipedia is their NPOV (neutral point-of-view) that all their articles adhere to.

Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Do rumours get included in the articles?  If so, where do they fit?  How do you take a NPOV about a rumour?  A rumour, in essence, is someone’s POV until it is either explicitly confirmed or denied, right?  Let’s examine Lady Gaga’s article’s discussion board.

When Lady Gaga’s article was unlocked, it did include the rumours (and the fact that the rumours were untrue) but that part of the article was “removed, citing WP:HARM.”  One editor, C. Farm stated that

at some point, we may have to mention the rumour and its debunking to maintain neutral point-of-view and not give the appearance of bias by not mentioning. However, I think the tipping point will come not with first-hand confirmation but with the depth and breadth of third-party coverage.

So where is the line drawn on rumours?  Editor 86.136.138.119 puts up a great point that

By the reasoning that rumours shouldn’t be posted, neither should the Roswell Incident, right? Or any number of conspiracy theories. But they are, because though false, they are notable. That is the only criteria for being included, and notable it is. We aren’t saying she is or isn’t a hermaphrodite, simply that there are countless, notable rumours of it. Which is 100% true and notable.

I have to agree…right here!  When this rumour blossomed in August – I got about 12 text messages from friends around the country stating “Gaga’s a herme” et al.  Not to mention the Facebook and Twitter flurry that said rumour created.  Editor, The Bookkeeper of the Occult, puts up a great fight for her team

The difference is the Roswell incident has been the subject of WP:WELLKNOWN speculation for decades. WP:HARM states: If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it. The latter of which clearly applies to Lady Gaga. Three reliable sources amidst widespread unreliable blogs is hardly “numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time.”

The Bookkeeper brings up a great point.  Gossip blogs and other tabloid-like sources trounced this rumour around, but did CNN or MSNBC or The Gray Lady (our “reliable” sources of news) publish and speak-out about it?  ABC’s website had a blurb.  Is that enough of a “reliable source” to include?

Editor 83.177.122.248 just wanted some answers…

I came here…simply to find out if this rumour actually had proper evidence behind it, or if it was just yet another story blown up to massive proportions by blogs and ED. I agree [that], an article should be created for the sole reason of saying “There is this rumour, and as far as we can tell, there’s no truth behind it.”

Lady Gaga herself has since stated that “[her] little vagina is offended.”  There has been no confirmation of the rumour nor any explicit statement stating otherwise.

If you’ve gone to Lady Gaga’s Wikipedia page for an answer…you won’t find it.  Why?  Because there is no answer.  The only fact is that there is a rumour, but if its merely a fabrication, a publicity stunt, or the truth is unknown.

Editor Abrazame continues his rebuttal, and, although we can’t really claim a “winner,” the article to date doesn’t include a mention of the rumour.

The suggestion that if someone personally denies a rumor, that makes the rumor notable enough to address in their encyclopedia biography is both missing the point about why encyclopedias don’t elevate rumor to the level of encyclopedic biographical detail and it is presenting the subject of a rumor—and editors—with a catch-22, which is unacceptable.

Think about it: if she doesn’t respond, then people say, “why doesn’t she just tell everybody it’s untrue?”; some decide to answer for themselves: “she’s humiliated”, “she has something to hide”, “she’s purposely letting the rumor build up steam for some publicity-hungry reason”, and even “it stemmed from a stunt in which she was a witting participant”. So we blame the victim of the rumor. Yet, if she does issue a denial, through a representative or by speaking to the issue herself, you argue that this causes the rumor to spring into notability to her biography? So we reward the person(s) who started the rumor by doing precisely what they wanted, to biographically associate their lie with this notable person.

No. That’s not the way this works. So a blog reports that in a radio interview she has asserted that this is a false rumor, and made a joke about taking offense; this denial is noted in an MTV.com article. This makes the rumor less notable to her biography, not more so.

*sings*

Gaga…Ooh La La (download link…shhhh)