Talk:Madonna

Template:Maintained

Lack of neutrality in this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am very concerned at the lack of neutrality in the main article. It would appear that certain editors are making sure that only complimentary comments are included about the subject and are creating a "generally positive image" only (as stated below) and excising anything that does not fit the intended eulogistic tone of the article. Personal thoughts of the subject matter aside, this is unbecoming to a serious encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia and does not give a fair and balanced account of the subject. It may also be a potential breech of a fundamental and non-negotiable Wiki policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. May we have other unbiased editors comments on this please? Manxwoman (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the statement in the section below this one - if negative aspects are to be incorporated, they should be high quality observers such as scholars analyzing pop music, or pop attitudes toward religion, or pop fashion. To be included criticism need to notable and certainly not gossipy. The lead itself includes several comments that she has been criticized so I don't see the whitewashing at all. Insomesia (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment about the comment. The principle of parity of sources applies. It is inconsistent to demand better sources for criticisms than is used in the rest of the article. If the article uses newspaper and magazine articles as sources, then criticisms that appear in similar newspapers and magazines are OK to use. FurrySings (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The parity guidelines refer to sources about fringe theories. Much more relevant in this case is the WP:BLP policy, which tends to agree with Insomnia's and Binksternet's comments. Specifically, contentious material about a living person must be well-sourced. That said, we should not be sourcing positive comments about Madonna to tabloid newspapers either. Kaldari (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that the article does have an overly eulogistic tone, with too much personal detail and too many personal quotations. That fact that these may all be well sourced does not mean that they should be in an encyclopedia article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly fine with someone going through the text and sources to reduce laudatory fluff from puff pieces. I'm also fine with someone adding well-sourced and neutrally worded criticism. Neither of these processes needs to have consensus from a talk page thread to establish whether they can be performed or not. Go with WP:BRD. Anyway, I don't think the article is all that far from neutral, that there is a giant problem. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced the quotations a bit in the '1958–81: Early life and career beginnings'. I hope you do not find this excessive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to me to be with the tone of the article. It contains many quotations which give the article an unencyclopedic, too promotional, and too personal tone. I will try to replace some of the quotations with third person commentary to see how it looks. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Do you really think so? But why none of editors concerned about that "personal tone" in the previous FAC discussion. If the article was really that "unencyclopedic", then it would not promoted to FA. Not to mention that the article has gone through a lot of peer reviews and good article nominee/reassessments (see on the article milestones). Bluesatellite (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do really think so, see the comment below. The FA reviewers clearly missed something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This article reads as if written by her fanbase or her agent. There are sections about her "artistry", her "influence" and her "legacy", and not a single one about "critisicms", "scandals", or "controversy". This is one of the most unbalanced articles on Wikipedia. Madonna is a very controversial figure and the article should reflect that. It doesn't. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand the article is well sourced and well written, in fact very skilfully written to minimise the impact of criticism that is actually mentioned in the article if you look. I suspect that this comes from the wording of many of the sources, which seem to be fan-based.

I do not think any heavy handed editing is warranted but a light touch is needed to remove some of the gloss and to balance the lavish praise present throughout the article. Any important missing criticisms, controversies, or scandals should, of course, be added.

I have started trying edit the article to achieve the above aims. Please have a look at my edits and let me know if you think I am doing the right thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article does seem to have an eulogistic tone. However WP policies discourage sections focusing on "critisicms", "scandals", or "controversies", see WP:CRITS. If there are any missing criticisms and such, these should be simply added to the relevant sections in the article, not under a section of their own. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The amount of negative/postive ratio should be close to what it is in the reliable refs. Madonna should have good refs available for both postive/negative. Change the iffy refs for good ones and use the ratio of postive/negative as base for the ratio in this article. SD (talk contribs) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the page is not neutral and has a promotional tone. The policy regarding no criticism or controversy sections is a suggestion and should be more focused on cases of pushing a personal agenda. Hasn't some of Madonna's appeal throughout her career been tied to how controversial she is at times? A section focused on this would be comparable to her Legacy section as it currently is. I wouldn't have a problem including in the article as is for more specific instances either, but at least some progress should me made towards making this more neutral. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

consensus regarding infobox picture

I think we should make a consensus regarding which picture to use on the article's infobox, should we keep using the shankbone one, or the more recent MDNA one??? --LuxiromChick (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We already have recent consensus to prefer the shankbone image. See archive 13 above for details of the discussion. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

These two photos have been uploaded recently, they were taken in April at her Truth or Dare press conference. Does anyone think that they would fit? Amzer (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:At the Macy's Store - NY - Truth or Dare Press Conference.jpg
• File:Madonna na loja Macy's - NY - Truth or Dare Conferência de Imprensa.jpg

The first one is pretty high in resolution and works fine as infobox picture. I would concensise for that one. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there such a word as 'concensise' or 'consensise' even? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to confirm those pictures are indeed property of the uploader, i seem to remember than a while ago a similar picture, from the same event was uploaded and subsequently deleted due to copyright issues. --LuxiromChick (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Madonna MDNA Vancouver.jpg cannot be used either. It may be of large size but definitely not of high-resolution at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it highly suspicious that these images have already appeared on other websites. It is not likely they have no copyrights attached - see http://blameitonmadonna.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/truth-or-dare-by-madonna-launch-at.html 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, if it was the uploader's genuine own work as claimed, they would have the camera's metadata attached. In both cases the metadata indicates they were downloaded from elsewhere as jpeg files which makes their availability for use in this article most unlikely. It is more likely these images will be deleted on copyright grounds. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So its back to the old Shankbone image as I can see. I did a personal search on Flickr, none of the images are at all suitable. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Truth or Dare photos are actually copyright violations, I just found them on Getty. I reported them to Commons for a speedy deletion. Amzer (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a personal photo of Madonna that I took during the MDNA tour, as it is mine would putting it up here be a violation of any wiki terms? The "current" infobox photo of her is five years out of date (she doesn't even look like that anymore!) and considering the level of importance of this music article I think it reflects badly on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.66 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be a copyright violation because since you're the one who took the picture, you legally own it. So feel free to upload it on Commons here : Commons:Upload. Amzer (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal for Madonna (art)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Madonna (art)#Requested Move: → Madonna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --Trystan (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013

In the Madonna article it was stated that her half time show at the super bowl in 2012 was the highest watched ever with 114 million viewers-well, in 1993 Michael Jackson performed the super bowl half time show and he had 135 million viewers (according to WIKIPEDIA) so how can Madonna's half time show be the highest watched? Please research and make necessary corrections. Thank you. Mj4everliveson (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not proceed:

• With MJ did not know if it's true, because the reference is a bibliography so it is difficult to verify this data. It can also be a factual error or because of vandalism. Regardless of the above, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, Madonna's performance is the most watched in history of presentations halftime of Super Bowl. So sorry. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013

Madonna has won 11 Grammies.

122.176.194.220 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: All her awards are listed in a different article, which is linked from this one: List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Madonna. That article only shows she has won seven times. If you have a reliable source that says she's won more, please add it to that article, or raise the issue on the talk page there. RudolfRed (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Pop

Once again, we need to ask that the Wiki staff look beyond their personal dislike of Madonna and ad what is her official title in the music industry as stated by critics, fellow artists, and public polls. Just like Michael Jackson's page list him as King of Pop, this one needs to name Madonna as Queen of Pop. Please stop arguing the fans on this. Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Many artists has been called "Queen of pop", so true, but not as widely as Madonna (And this does not only include the United States, is worldwide). Anyway, many journalists and music critics and sociocultural call Madonna as "the eternal queen of pop" (Including references as of 2009... 2012 or even 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.56.253.139 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Pop is used so lightly for some reason, and I have no idea what it is. Madonna was the first to be cited as the Queen of Pop (to my knowledge) and she has been reported as so for many years, so I don't see a problem with including it. I'm just noting that the media seems to call anybody the Queen of Pop now-a-days. Nobody calls anybody the King of Pop unless they mean Micheal. It's weird. Probably a gender thing. But yes, Madonna is well-known as the Queen of Pop for decades. Status 03:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There are passive mentions of her title throughout the article, and it seems to be what she's notorious for. Include it somewhere in the lead. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Have struck my comment per below. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. In response to the assertion by Status that Madonna was the first to be called Queen of Pop, I present the following sources:
  • 1965: Cue, "The enigmatic Marisol, the artist who might be called the Queen of Pop..." [1]
  • 1970: Goa Today, (Regarding Usha Uthup) "The programme opened amid wild cheers from the audience as the Queen of Pop music stepped on to the centre of the stage." [2]
  • 1973: Ebony, "...Diana Ross, a reigning queen of pop culture." [3]
  • 1974: Phonograph Record, "Suzi Quatro, Queen of Pop" [4]
  • 1975: Billboard, "Debby Byrne: Currently Australia's 'Queen of Pop'..." [5]
  • 1976: Looking good: the liberation of fashion. "If Ethel Scull inherited Baby Jane Holzer's title as queen of pop people back in the late sixties..." [6]
  • 1977: Congressional oversight hearings, "And in the area of topical live entertainment, pay cable has featured Bette Midler, the reigning queen of pop-rock..." [7]
  • 1978: Punch, "Nina Miskow, The Sun's new Queen of Pop..." [8]
  • 1978: Lewiston Evening Journal, "'Queen of Pop' high school dropout" (regarding Marcia Hines. [9]
  • 1978: Gadsden Time, "Australia's 'Queen of Pop' is an American Woman" (regarding Marcia Hines. [10]
  • 1979: Billboard, "The company's viability for the past three years has been based upon the multi-platinum sales of 'Queen of Pop' Marcia Hines..." [11]
  • 1985: TV Guide, "Tina Turner: Her comeback is the ultimate example of the battered divorcee returning... Read about the queen of pop & rock and her HBO concert." [12]
    • I think the phrase "Queen of Pop" has been used too many times in too many situations for Madonna to own it alone. We should never say in Wikipedia's voice that Madonna is the Queen of Pop. We can say that this person or that publication honored her with the term. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • Interesting, I will give my opinion when I have time, in any case, if this discussion has already been shut down, I will be opening a new. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to the list of arguments opposing it. Those are incredibly weak. While it's true anyone can write anything, none of those artist have accomplished what she has, and most of them I've never heard of. Diana Ross doesn't even do pop music, she does R & B, and that article said "Queen of Pop Culture" which is different than Pop music. Also, the title is not as thrown around as you say. Madonna is in the clear world wide majority when it comes to holding this title. Also, there are people who have named others as the King. Some people have said Usher, Kanye West and even Justin Beiber are the King now. Obviously, that's ridiculous. So is anyone but Madonna being given this title. It's time for Wikipedia to finally recognize this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djackson84 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose (I agree with a mention in the article, perhaps in legacy, but definitely not in the lead - an other editor said that were "passive" mentions, and I'll have to check, but this may already be - in my opinion - satisfactory). The Michael Jackson page perhaps has a rationale for the term, it being that he monopolized the term "King of Pop"; other artists have been referred to similar titles but not to the extent he has. Yes, Madonna has been given this title (and lots of other honorific titles) by the media, but the "title" has not really stuck with her as something singularly significant (see the List of honorific titles in popular music#M). By extension, we would have to include the British media nickname of "Madge" in the lead, purely because a group of journalists have referred to her as this. Looking through the list, other artists such as Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston and Celine Dion have received the title, perhaps even to the extent Madonna has. Furthermore, claims that Madonna is the "most superior" or "most well known" or even the "Queen of Pop" are point-of-view pushing, cannot be verified and would damage the neutrality of the article. —Jennie | ☎ 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the opposes and have withdrawn my support. A mention in the lead is probably POV-pushing. I think I meant to write "passing", but that wouldn't even be the right word. Perhaps, "brief". But maybe that's all that's needed. Any more and we have puffery. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Wiki's personal feelings against her come into play. That's what breaking the neutrality of your page. Whitney and Mariah's latest work wasn't even pop, it was R&B, and Celine's career is no one near Madonna's. None of them have reached the level she is on. That's not opinion or point of view. And to say the title hasn't stuck with her, is simply incorrect as none of them have been referred to as this by even a quarter of the times Madonna has. It's unimaginable that Wikipedia still works this way. Shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djackson84 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

• Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna
• Madonna → Madonna (disambiguation)

– I understand that this issue has been discussed multiple times in the past, but I still feel that this is a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only article on the disambiguation that could compete with Madonna the singer for primary topic would be Mary, and even so the term "Madonna" is only used thirteen times in the article, not one of which is a notable term presented in the introduction. Of thw two, the singer is much more notable in this naming, and deserves the primary naming. This would require moving the disambiguation to Madonna (disambiguation) but I couldn't get the multimove template working. WikiRedactor (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I repaired the multimove template for you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. She's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this name. Status 04:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  Not according to the several previous move discussions, nor to those who participated in this discussion earlier this year that proposed to make Madonna (art) the primary topic instead. You may want to be more specific in your comment. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is about a three to one ratio of page views in favor of Madonna only looking at the first three pages on the dis page, but that really is not enough to change the status quo (I tend to favor at least 4:1, and preferably 5:1 over the next most viewed, though this is not listed as a criteria in the guidelines, which says more than all others, a criteria that has always been met). Never mind that Madonna has sold more records than any other (female) performer. Unfortunately there is something else that is very well known that Madonna was named after. Apteva (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If you google Madonna -wikipedia, 29 of the top 30 results refer to the singer. The other one refers to Madonna University in Michigan. A topic is primary, "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kauffner (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)