Talk:Madonna

Input requested on creating a "Politics section" for Madonna's article

Thoughts yay or nay on whether a Politics section should be created for her article like Cher has, for news articles that have covered Madonna's past/current views on the Trump candidacy/presidency? Cllgbksr (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The thought is a viable idea, but I'm not sure where it would go within the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's a poor idea, unless she is also a political activist, and then it would go in a "political activism" section. --Light show (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but not in this article. Better, separate article. I can help with academic material and reliable sources about that. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever amount of political activity she's been involved with doesn't warrant a separate article if you ask me. It's nowhere near as prominent as her work in music (which has both a singles discography and an albums discography) or even in film (which has a filmography page). She also isn't a politician anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

But she can really act like one. --Light show (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Is your point of view :). I don't asked, and yeah Madonna is an artist, but she is an cultural icon as well and the result is more than artist. Possible in the future, because this article is long also (please read this essay). I mean, this not exactly like Cher's article, because there is other context for Madonna and even if she isn't a politician. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no point in creating a separate article on her political agenda and views and supports. Every musician, actor, starlet nowadays are into politics and has their own views. Doesn't make it notable unless her views and actions have directly influenced the said political workflow itself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at 4+ well sourced articles (Huffington Post, The Guardian, New York Daily News, USA Today) that were generated in the news cycle in last 24 hours regarding her fundraising event in Miami where she was extremely vocal on her political views of Trump. She also stated at that fundraising event she's "ashamed to be an American". She's putting herself front and center in the public eye with her political views and opinion. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah so? She had been equally vocal if I remember about Sarah Palin on the Sticky & Sweet Tour, Marine le Pen on The MDNA Tour etc. Every artist who shares their political views puts them on the forefront of social media for the world to see and judge. But that does not make it important or notable enough to warrant a separate section or article. Unless you are Arnold S., and have actually changed careers to be a politician, or maybe someone like Paul Robeson whose views themselves caused a great turmoil and concern during the cold wars. What exactly has Madonna achieved by blasting Trump? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You just made my point IndianBio. Thank you. Madonna has shown a consistent pattern of voicing her opinion on various political matters and figures. Makes her an artist and a political activist. Warrants a Politics section or separate article. It's not what she has achieved by blasting Trump so much as the notoriety of her making the blast. Otherwise she wouldn't be in the news cycles for those blasts. Her political views should be memorialized. Both past and present.Cllgbksr (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

A section is fine, an article would be too much per my above comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Section makes more sense. Cllgbksr (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

A section, or even a paragraph, would be bonkers IMO. She doesn't even have a personal life section. She's been outspoken at various times about religion, childbirth, illnesses, etc. A sentence in a relevant section would be reasonable, but there's no section relevant to a singer giving an opinion about something unrelated to their notability. It would undermine the bio and set a very bad precedent that some would use to add similar off-topic personal opinions about anything to other bios. Would we give a section, paragraph, or even a sentence, to other singers who tweeted their opinion about life on other planets, global warming, nuclear arms, Zika viruses, or Olympic drug-users? --Light show (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Light Show, Cher is a singer. She has a Politics section in her WP article. Seems to me you want Madonna to have her cake and eat it too. She can't have it both ways. No pun intended.Cllgbksr (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Except by using Cher's section to justify one here, you simply proved my point about setting bad precedents. --Light show (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a Politics subsection under "Other Interests". I just reviewed the Cher article again and it doesn't break up the flow of the article. It actually fits nicely. As to precedents, I think the bad precedent was set by Madonna when she stepped outside being an entertainer into politics. She went there not me. So if she's going to talk politics might as memorialize it on WP. Just a matter of format.Cllgbksr (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep giving reasons why it's actually inappropriate to be included. Saying "She went there not me," implies celebrities don't have a right of free speech for giving personal opinions, or else they've "stepped outside of being an entertainer." Anyone should have a right to state their opinion about current events or politics at home, to fans or the media. WP shouldn't be "memorializing" celebrity opinions into an encyclopedic format unless the person has achieved notability as an activist, for example DiCaprio's. --Light show (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Madonna has the right to free speech, but she's using a very big, celebrity microphone. When she talks politics it makes the news cycle. Seems you want to parse what is relevant she says or not based on her status as an entertainer and thus what should be memorialized in WP. If you want to keep her Madonna WP article tight with material that solely focuses on her works as a singer and the fluff stuff just say so. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: I think that you're taking lightly. IndianBio said something true, that now: "Every artist who shares their political views puts them on the forefront of social media for the world to see and judge". But Madonna did before social networks, talking about social-political issues and received thousands of comments from popular opinion as well, theorics and critics and now is a division from Madonna Studies. Academics from Pontifical Xavierian University said that she is "more a media figure than a musician". We know that she debuted as an artist, but she is a global cultural icon. This is a illustration that we can add in the possible future section. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note, my comments are vehemently against a separate article, as its strongly WP:UNDUE and fails WP:N. Regarding a small section? Not sure, maybe a sandbox version we can use and see how best it can be merged. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Madonna will be on social security by the time something is created on WP. I have a feeling this is going to get a lot of pushback from her protectors on WP. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Protector? Just because me and Snuggums are against adding this content or creating a page, we are suddenly "protectors"? Lol. Ok then you are a Madonna vandal. See how that works? :P —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

lol.... that's funny IndianBio. If I was going to vandalize her page I wouldn't have started a talk section on whether a Politics section should be created or not. See how that works? Cllgbksr (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulling you legs.... —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

lol...good to know you have a sense of humor...Cllgbksr (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

well, today Madonna told hundreds of thousands of people at the Women's march in D.C. she's thought about blowing up the White House... does that qualify as news for a political section? just asking... Cllgbksr (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This article needs a 'Personal Life' section

Many, if not most, articles on notable celebrities include a 'personal life' section with details of who the person has dated and married. I'm very surprised to see that there is no such section here, given her long history of relationships. Instead, there are scattered references to her marriages and a few of her past boyfriends throughout the article. I can find no information on who she has dated since she split up with Guy Ritchie, which is frankly ridiculous. It would be helpful if this information could be brought together into its own section and expanded (who is her current or most recent boyfriend, for example? the article doesn't say). --Viennese Waltz 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the purpose of discussion, I found the below from www.frisky.com To give an idea how big the section could be if created.

"Late 1970s: Dates Dan Gilroy; they form the band Breakfast Club together.

Early 1980s: Dates her collaborator Stephen Bray, who still holds master recordings to many unreleased Madonna songs; dates painter Jean-Michel Basquiat; dates DJ and record producer Mark Kamins, who helped launch her career by presenting a demo of “Everybody” to Seymour Stein of Sire Records; dates musician John “Jellybean” Benitez, who produced “Holiday.”

1985: Meets and marries Sean Penn.

December 1987: Penn and Madonna file and then withdraw divorce papers.

1987-1988: Dates John F. Kennedy, Jr.

December 31, 1988: Madonna and Penn separate.

1988-1989: Dates Sandra Bernhard.

September 1989: Madonna and Penn divorce.

1989-1990: Dates Warren Beatty, who is notoriously jealous and suspicious that she’s cheating.

1990: Dates Antonio Banderas and Lenny Kravitz.

Late 1990: Dates Tony Ward, a bisexual model and porn star who starred in the videos for “Cherish” and “Justify My Love.”

Early 1991: Madonna breaks up with Ward and starts an eight-month relationship with Vanilla Ice, who appears in her Sex book.

1992: Dates Willem Dafoe, rapper Big Daddy Kane, and baseball player Jose Canseco.

1992-1994: Dates James Albright and nightclub owner Ingrid Casares.

Mid-1990s: Dates basketball player Dennis Rodman, who later says that she wanted him to be the father of her children.

September 1994: Madonna meets fitness trainer Carlos Leon, who becomes her trainer and lover.

October 14, 1996: Madonna gives birth to their daughter, Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon, in Los Angeles.

1997: Madonna breaks up with Leon.

1998: Dates Andy Bird, a penniless and aspiring screenwriter. She was supposedly pregnant with his child after dating for three months and aborted the baby. They broke up after 18 months; he then sold the story of their romance to a tabloid.

1999: Madonna meets Guy Ritchie through Sting and Trudie Styler.

August 11, 2000: Madonna gives birth to their son Rocco in Los Angeles.

December 22, 2000: Madonna and Ritchie marry in Scotland.

October 15, 2008: Madonna and Ritchie confirm their split because they “can’t bear to live with the pretense any longer.” Madonna is rumored — and then confirmed — to be entangled in a romantic relationship with baseball player Alex Rodriguez.

December 2008/January 2009-Present: Madonna begins dating model Jesus Luz after meeting him at a photo shoot and the two have been virtually inseparable ever since"

Cllgbksr (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And that only goes up to 2009 lol. Given a track record like that, I'd be very surprised if she were still dating Luz (I haven't checked). Anyway, the relationships would all need to be sourced of course, which would no doubt make the section shorter (I doubt frisky.com is a reliable source). --Viennese Waltz 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

lol...Yep... my first thought was finding credible sources for each relationship. I'm guessing the majority of sources will be tabloid magazines, etc. I forgot she had dated Sandra Bernhard Cllgbksr (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose personal life section that's basically asking to be bloated with fancruft, gossip, and trivia. Absolutely not worth the risk. Her high-profile relationships are also largely intertwined with her career. For example, she co-starred with Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise as well as with Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy while Guy Ritchie directed her film Swept Away. Frisky.com isn't viable as it leads to "fuck.com", which is a hook-up site. Also, not every relationship she is involved with is worth mentioning per WP:NOTADIARY. It's best to stick with high-profile partners. I'm not saying we can't include post-Ritchie relationships, but this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of the men in her life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose for everything Snuggums wrote above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Snuggums Fyi the content was only added to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and the visual on how big that section could be if created. Also I never considered frisky to be a credible source for sourcing.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really care whether the section gets "bloated with fancruft, gossip, and trivia", such material can always be removed. I just basically want a list of her relationships, those that can be reliably sourced that is. You sound as though that is beneath the tone of this article, well it isn't. This article is about the life not just the work. As for Penn, Beatty and Ritchie, that accounts for three of her 20-odd relationships. There are many more which are not intertwined with her career. --Viennese Waltz 13:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You should care whether or not it gets bloated. The risk isn't worth taking when the negatives of such a section here would outweigh any potential positives. As for a list of relationships, like I said before, this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive collection per WP:NOTADIARY. Carlos Leon might not have been involved with her professional career, but I'd say he fits in pretty well during the Evita period. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, you win. I give up. --Viennese Waltz 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If Madonna were to honor her October 19th announcement she made at Madison Square Garden, her words "If You Vote for Hillary Clinton, I Will Give You a Blowj*b"...would that be considered a relationship?Cllgbksr (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

She was only offering a business opportunity. --Light show (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't fucking believe people are even bringing that up. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What can't you believe IndianBio, that Madonna offered "favors" for votes? Cllgbksr (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of us can't believe that anyone took M literally. --Light show (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Moral of the story is anyone who has followed Madonna for years knows she's unhinged and will say anything to get a reaction. Cllgbksr (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So can we all agree that WP is not the place to be memorializing attention-getting hyperbolic drivel? Light show (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and after the statement "will say anything to get a reaction" I'm definitely opposing any such section given the general sentiment with which it is being presented. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Light show and IndianBio. Cllgbksr (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Robert M Grant linked

Hey guys, quick note, the Robert M Grant linked as the author of contemporary strategy analysis is the wrong one. Go ahead and fix that link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.108.237 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

madonna about playing in Iran

She made announcement about her interest to play in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsala111 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How is that relevant here? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that is one of her dreams what she likes. So it adds some information to the article plus it makes the article unbiased and interesting to people of other countries.And it is a fact its true. Because most of the English Wikipedia is so biased and all talks about whether U.S or western countries and nothing about Asia.lets say when they talk about laundry room they only talk about what and how it designed in USA or Britannia not the other countries so that makes most of the English articles so biased and not complete.Anyway from sport to entertainment and from health to education most of the English Wikipedia doesn't cover anything but information about U.S.ASimsala111 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If a performance in Iran or any nation gathers significant attention, then it would be worth including, but merely expressing interest isn't. See WP:NOTADIARY for more. Its inclusion (or lack thereof) doesn't really in itself affect whether the article is biased. Saying that the English Wikipedia mostly doesn't cover things outside of the US is also highly exaggerated given how people from countless nations have articles and include lots of activity from their respective homelands. In Madonna's case, much of her career success is based in America, so the article includes lots of detail of activity there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

well performance in that country is impossible right now. But I think the news definitely was important and worthy that credible websites such as Hollywood reporter ,Huffingtonposts ,cbsnews and many more wrote about it and that news included her opinion about that country and her fans in that country and her political view. But just for making becoming biased not saying its Intentionally but like having covered all soccer players from 3rd division of a western country and not having a page for a national players of the other Countries makes it look like that. And eventually makes reader to get harder time to conclude if any needed with one side full Information in details and the other side not even main articles.Simsala111 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Simsala111: you have been answered that this is not notable information for this article, and maybe we can include it in The MDNA Tour since it pertained to that era. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: OK then maybe you can add it there if needed cause I am not expert in English Wikipedia and that article is also protected.Simsala111 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)