Talk:Madonna

See also: Talk:Madonna (singer).

Archives:

1. 01 (July 26 2005 to March 1 2006)
2. 02 (March 1 2005 to April 6 2006)
3. 03 (April 7 2006 to December 30 2006)

Get Your Act Together, People

Anyone with half a brain can see that the claim of..what? 180 million record sales is NOT true. In fact, your own website contradicts itself. Go to the "List of best-selling music artist" page and you will see not ONE, but TWO citations (one of them from Rolling Stone Magazine) saying she has sold 175 million albums and 75 million singles. 175 + 75 = 250. Okay? Thanks. 76.112.102.98 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're referring to album sales. 68.82.82.248 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources say she sold 250 million albums. Read the heading!!

Queen Of Pop

Madonna's being titled in almost every article as the 'Queen of Pop'; it's almost as it's her second name. That title should be out there in the beginning of the Wiki page, and not just mentioned at the 'Criticism' section as "... while some proclaimed her as the queen of pop..." That's just not right and doesn't do justice with her. The "Queen of Pop" title is an integral part of the reference and the description of Madonna in the media. That's just a fact – just google her and you'll see that in more that 95% of that articles she's being called just that. In fact that title is almost like her second name in the media. That should be fixed in the Madonna page.

i must agree infact it seems odd that it isnt in the lead. i woundn`t concider it to be fan wording to put it there, the only people who would question it would be those who hate her inwhich case have bias themselves surely. Realist2 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Realist2. So can you do something to change it?

UPDATE IFPI

Maybe it's time to update the intro and write that teh IFPI ahve finally confirmed that Madoona HAS SOLD MORE than 200 million albums The most official source in music idustry confirms: Madonna's unprecedented album sales for a female artist top the 200 millio albums (which means well more than 300m million records worldwide including singles, probably 320/330) Source... [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.181.217 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Objectiveness

User 84.45.196.194 wrote This seems to me like the rantings of a fan, aiming to score one above the criticisms. There are no sources quoted, and weasel-words are predominant.

Well, the one that created the Criticism section admitted to absolutely hate Madonna, which denotes some bias. And the review of Love Profusion that was given was a blatant rant. I wrote great Madonna lyrics. Those who reviewed Love Profusion chose the simplest lyrics of the song in order to bash it. "We all know she can't write lyrics...", "...even for a retard." THAT was a retarded rant! Some artists' articles like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and many others don't even have a criticism section. I'm only being objective and would write the same thing for any artist.

Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I now edited the Objectiveness section and it's perfect. Israell 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

True, most articles don't even have a criticism section, and most of Miss Carey's sources come from ezines and forum posts, which are hardly reliable and objective....

Madonna has influnced many pop stars over her 25 year career and yet this is not mentioned. She is also one of the most sucessful and famous women on all time, and yet this is not mentioned. She is also the most successful female tourng act of all time and yet this is not mentioned. Madonna needs a pop culture section, and a list of all the singers she's influnced, if it wasnt for her non of them would exist. She is also the most powerful women in music history and is also in the UK hall of fame along with elvis.

Diet and exercise section

Is it necessary that this have its own section? Can't it be incorporated somewhere else in the article. We cant comment on EVERY aspect of Madonna's lifestyle Peter2012

- YES WE CAN! Thats the beauty of an online, uncensored & unlimited information site like wikipedia. Any and all correct reliable information can and should be included in articles. The more correct & detailed info an article has, the better! And just specifically about the diet and exercise section, I was actually quite shocked at how small it was! Diet and exercise are a HUGE part of Madonnas life and public image! She spends several hours every single day doing all kinds of exercises and workouts, and she is now almost as renowned for her incredibly fit body as she is for her music! Therefore the diet and exercise section should definitely be expanded with also a focus on how it is a large part of her public image. HF3 - 15 January 2007

Madonna's entertainer to artiste

The term 'artiste' is definitely more appropriate to describe Madonna Louise Ciccone than 'entertainer', which is used for circus clowns, cabaret shows, etc, which is absolutely ridiculous. Madonna is an artiste not an entertainer - she is pop star! Do not use words like idiosyncratic, sure you jest, but the term 'entertainer' is more idiosyncratic than artiste which is a more appropriate term... If there are any alternative choice of words, prefably it would be (Singer/Actress), (Performer) or (Artiste

'Entertainer' is an insult to the Madonna whom u classified her amongst circus clowns, cabaret show girls, magicians, stand-up comedians and game-show hosts... Madonna is not in the same category as them! Stealthusa 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shut up moron they call MJ an entertainer and he is 1 billion times better then Madonna

If we must add to Madonna's name, I think that artiste does fit better than entertainer, though I don't think that "entertainer" was an insult and I do think that "Artiste" should not be capitalized. However, I think that this article would be better located at simply "Madonna", relocating the disambiguation page there to "Madonna (disambiguation)", as has been done with Cher and Cher (disambiguation). Charity 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

- Please tell me you are taking the piss?!? Peter2012

Perhaps can we settle to Madonna (singer/actress) or Madonna (performer), i still do not like the term entertainer, it makes her looks as if she is some showgirl or circus clown! Please do not revert back!Stealthusa 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MADONNA, ELVIS, ROLLING STONES ARE NOT REAL MUSICAL TALENT, NEITHER WAS SINATRA, THEY CANT DANCE, WRITE SONGS, OR DO THE THINNGS MICHAEL JACKSON, PRINCE, JAMES BROWN OR EVEN BEATLES CAN DO

Stop moving the page around. Have a discussion here about a proper renaming, which would not involve pretentious pseudo-French nor incorrect capitalisation, get consensus, move the page, and then edit the several hundred pages that link here to reflect the change. If you're actually just goofing around, please use the Wikipedia:Sandbox for that. Jkelly 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you wish to move the page to a different title, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It clearly warrants discussion, so please no more page moves until we've had a thorough talk about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:RM, and there is a section for discussing the move at the bottom of this page now. —ShadowHalo 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

It seems that there are different interpretations of the meaning of the word "criticism" as used in the header of the same name. In terms of artistic review it encompasses comments that are both negative and positive. Hence a 'film critic' can critique a film and say nothing but good about it, or nothing but bad, or a mix of both. The "criticism" section would be more balanced and more in line with WP:NPOV if it summarized critical commentary both negative and positive. But the last thing this article needs is another essay or another injection of POV. Perhaps a different heading would make it clearer - perhaps "Critical comments" or "Critical commentary" etc. The "objectiveness" section is anything but objective and appears to be completely POV. (At least the criticism section is sourced and attributed) however I can see the value in tempering the exclusively negative tone of the "criticism section". Rossrs 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some may regard her vocal range as limited, but this is not criticism. One's vocal range has little to do with oe's singing quality. Moreover, these 'some' mentioned in teh article are cery little informed about vocal range. With a continuous range of 2.5 octaves, Madonna far exceeds the average singer's range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.33.6 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

- Quote: "Despite her alleged rebellion, Madonna had both of her biological children baptized in a Roman Catholic Church."

- This is untrue. Rocco was baptised at Dornoch Cathedral which is Scottish Presbyterian. See http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/dornoch/cathedral/index.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland 90.196.224.89 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Objectiveness

User 84.45.196.194 wrote This seems to me like the rantings of a fan, aiming to score one above the criticisms. There are no sources quoted, and weasel-words are predominant.

Well, the one that created the Criticism section admitted to absolutely hate Madonna, which denotes some bias. And the review of Love Profusion that was given was a blatant rant. I wrote great Madonna lyrics. Those who reviewed Love Profusion chose the simplest lyrics of the song in order to bash it. "We all know she can't write lyrics...", "...even for a retard." THAT was a retarded rant! Some artists' articles like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and many others don't even have a criticism section. I'm only being objective and would write the same thing for any artist.

Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I now edited the Objectiveness section and it's perfect. Israell 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the criticism section was very much negative. It makes Madonna look like a talentless Warner Bros. doll that sold a lot but can't write lyrics, sing etc. As I said earlier, some artists' articles, like Janet and Mariah's don't even have a Criticism section. Madonna's didn't have one but some anti-Madonna people insisted on there being a Criticism section. and they made it very much negativer by using horrible quotes, especially the brainless Love Profusion review.

It's an insult to Madonna's songwriting talent. She's always been writing songs. She wrote most songs on Madonna and Like A Virgin. She's was already very talented at it. There is a difference between criticism and blatant dissing. Madonna wrote so many compelling lyrics such as: "I traded fame for love without a secong thought. It all became a silly game. Some things cannot be bought. -Drowned World-" You can tell that there is no substance and professionalism in that criticism.

Israell 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the objectiveness section; this is not a fan page. And that entire section is nothing but glorifying her. I'm not saying that the Criticism section is without problems, but the verbiage in the Objectiveness section should not be here. There is no similar entry on ANY other potentially controversial individual on Wikipedia, from George W. Bush to Michael Jackson, or even Saddam Hussein. It likewise, should not be here. --Mhking 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because the Criticism section was made in a very negative way. It was made by someone that admitted to hating Madonna and it's NOT an anti-Madonna page neither. Some artists' articles don't even have a Criticism section. It makes it look like she CAN'T write lyrics. It's only fair to BALANCE things and make it neutral. And I did edit it.

Israell 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that -- my problem was specifically that the Objectiveness section was made to look like a fawning fan section. And as I said, no other page here has that. A balanced Criticism section is best for all. (and as for the confirmation name, I agree with you - my point was with the persons who included that name as a birth name) --Mhking 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Israell -- Wikipedia is not a fan site. An Objectiveness section has no place here. It does not exist under any other entry on the site. Period. If you have a problem with balance in the Criticism section, then rewrite that section to reflect the balance. But recognize that we're talking balance -- not cheerleading. --Mhking 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I just balanced the Criticism section and as I said earlier, other artists' articles such as Mariah and Janet don't have a Criticism section. Madonna's Criticism section is nothing but bashing her as it was made by anti-Madonna fans. Also, the article is getting too long -it got a lenght warning- and it's a waste of space because everything in that section was ALREADY addressed elsewhere in the article. Other parts of the article do mention the Sex/Erotica scandal, the Like A Prayer scandal, the David Ritchie contoversy, people doubting her talent because of controversy surrounding her etc. A Criticism section was honestly NOT necessary. Since it was so negative, I balanced it. There might need to be a vote on that whole section.

Israell 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Israell, you appear to be adding more "complimentary" content to the criticism section. I'm going to say this again, this is not a fan site. I'm going to reduce the amount of glad-handing you've posted. Balance is one thing; what you're doing is going beyond that. --Mhking 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna (performer) — Concerns have been raised at the talk page about the connotations of "entertainer". Other suggestions have included Madonna and moving the disambiguation page, Madonna (artiste), and Madonna (singer/actress). ShadowHalo 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose There is nothing wrong with the current name, she IS an entertainer after all (an entertainer can be a singer, actor, dancer, etc. anyone that ENTERTAINS). TJ Spyke 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Madonna has been called a lot worse than "entertainer," if you want to interpret the title as an insult. There are also snide insinuations that could be made about "performer," and I don't see how "entertainer" makes her sound like a magician or circus clown, but calling her a "performer" doesn't make her sound like a circus "performer" or a magician who "performs" tricks. (I certainly would not go along with "artiste," and as for "singer/actress" or anything else with the word "actress" in it... --Groggy Dice T | C 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose; the status quo is fine. --Guinnog 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; per T --Mhking 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; She entertains, whether it be on stage, screen or in a book. Therefor entertainer is the best word to use. fritte 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, time-wasting quibbling about a quite reasonable disambiguation. Gene Nygaard 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's really nothing wrong with "entertainer". PC78 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see nothing wrong with the title - performer could be misconstrued just as easily, and this one works better. -146.186.210.78 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really see any difference between the terms "entertainer" and "performer". Personally, I'd rather move this page to Madonna - that page currently redirects to Madonna (disambiguation) -- Charity 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - She's an entertainer. She entertains. There is nothing wrong with this title. PatrickJ83 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lyrics

OK. That edit MUST be good. Since ONE line from Love Profusion was added and criticised negatively, I added ONE Live To Tell line and added a source that criticises it positively. We're equal and even now. lol Editing a Madonna page is so hard hard. This I know. lol

However, Madonna's vocals on Live To Tell were considered her best by others at the time.

They deemed Live To Tell's lyrics poignant. "A man call tell a thousand lies. I've learned my lesson well. Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned. 'Til then it will burn inside of me."

Madonna also received good reviews from some reviewers for her Love Don't Live Here Anymore cover which was described as "heartfelt vocal".

Some critics do see Madonna as a talented songwriter.

Israell 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Way too long!

This article is way too long and should be divided into sub-articles Epachamo 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Keep the opening paragraph as short and obejective as possible. Lines like "She is 'COMMONLY' referred to as Queen of Pop or sometimes just "the Queen" are total nonsense. Madonna is NOT "COMMONLY" referred to as that, but SOMETIMES. And nobody calls her "THE QUEEN" except her uber-hardcore fans. PatrickJ83 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. The recent edits seem to be aimed to glorify her, with the editor single-handlely keeping reverting the text back to the prior, biased version, saying the phrases should stay simply because they've been there for weeks and weren't hers/his in the first place. I have no idea where the reasoning comes from. Please, let's keep this objective. I have reverted.--Downtownstar 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, you are so right. The lead is meant to be a short summary of the article, not a publicity blurb. Rossrs 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy that - while we're at it, can we remove that thing about "adopted name Esther"? 99% of the population doesn't know that.rich 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A new picture....

Would this picture be ok to use for the main page??

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/070618_Issue/070608_BZ01_vl.widec.jpg

http://images.forbes.com/media/2007/01/women/women_4.jpg PatrickJ83 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Queen of Pop"

I was doing some thinking of the inclusion of this 'title' in the opening salvo. As fitting as it is for her position as the highest selling female artist (it is VERY UNLIKELY M. Carey has outsold her) it still smacks of bias and fan idolatry. Perhaps this should be removed from the opening paragraph to make it more professional. Opinions? PatrickJ83 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WELL MIRIAH IS MULATA, MIXED WITH BLACK SO MADONNA IS LIKE AN ELVIS YOU KNOW PLAYS BLACK MUSIC RING A BELL?? You see, it's impossible to come to an understanding with you. We removed "commonly" that was added by others, replaced it by "sometimes" and now you want it completely gone when it caused no problem, when it's true and factual that she is referred as such.

Several newspapers, journalists, websites and publications did credit her as being the Queen Of Pop. It's not just a "fan thing". Madonna's widely known as The Queen Of Pop just like Elvis Presley is widely known as The King Of Rock and Michael Jackson as The King Of Pop. Courtney Love is now starting to be known as The Queen Of Rock. I said that first and Linda Perry said it several months later as well as some other people. Israell 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't say 'it's impossible to come to an understanding with me' as you and I have had NO dealings together in the past. Ta. PatrickJ83 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has removed this comment several times in the past, I'd be happy to see it gone from the lead section. And before anyone starts ranting at me, please read WP:LEAD to see what kind of information is supposed to be recorded there. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article that follows, but although the article goes on (and on and on and on) there is no mention of "Queen of Pop" anywhere. In my opinion this defies logic. It's so important it must be mentioned without any kind of context in the lead, but not important enough to even mention it in the article despite the thousands and thousands of words that attempt to describe Madonna in extreme detail. I have no problem with it being mentioned in the article, in fact I would encourage it, but the lead should be reserved for the most important things about the subject and the fact that Madonna is sometimes referred to as "Queen of Pop" is not one of the most important things to say about her. Rossrs 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and I removed it again. I have nothing against mentioning the Queen of Pop thingy in the article, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.--Downtownstar 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just visited the Elvis Presley article and "The King of Rock 'n' Roll", as well as "The King" were included in the opening paragraph. Israell 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Elvis was widely known by those titles where as the Madonna ones are not very widely known. No doubst sources do exist but i for one have never seen her referred by those titles in print. WhizzBang 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that those titles should be added to both the Madonna and Michael Jackson articles, not just Elvis. Madonna and Michael might have been called that less but they were called that very often throughout their entire careers. Often enough to be included. Israell 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I DONT THINK YOU CAN COMPARE MADONNA TO MJ SORRY YOU CANT COMPARE A BUICK WITH A FERRARI, SHE CANNOT SING LIKE WHITNEY OR MIRIAH, CANT BE GENIUS LIKE PRINCE, CANT DANCE OR SING, BE VERSATILE LIKE MJ, SHES BUBBLE GUM POP SORRY, SHE HAS NEVER WRITTEN A GENIUS SONG LIKE BILLIE JEAN OR LIL RED CORVETTER, SORRY EVERYONE KNOWS THIS , THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO LIKE MADONNA ARE GAYS, AND WOMEN CAUSE SHE IS ONE, JANET JACKSON IS EVEN BETTER, SORRY

^that was the most incoherent bunch of babble I have ever tried to read. Dude you lack clarity, validity, and clearly taste. Madonna is the undisputed Queen of Pop. She is both critically and commercially acclaimed as an artist (more so then any of those people you mention.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.151.218 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I moved the Queen of Pop claim to the main article. I hope we won't have to vote about this, since it's not that important of a detail and we should concentrate on improving the article a little more profoundly.--Downtownstar 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Queen Of Pop thing... well I did find this on the IFPI website look into this link http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_month_20060913.html where Madonna is awarded her 4th platinum for COADF note the Queen Of Pop reference...

I still have a problem with the title being included at all. It is not widely used -- certainly not within the mainstream media. If anything, it is more fancruft, and as such, does not belong in a Wikipedia entry. I'll leave it for now; I'm about to be away for a family emergency. But this is something that truly needs to be excised. --Mhking 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mhking, Madonna is called The Queen of Pop, just about every time she is written about. The media dubbed her that and continue to refer to it. Downdown723 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give three examples? I have never heard of this. WhizzBang 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever it is sign your comments and don't talk in Caps. 80.43.9.157 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Madonna is commonly called The Queen of Pop, don't know what rock your living under but I work for a newspaper and we are always told to put Queen of Pop when writing about Madonna.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.110.54 (talk • contribs)

Confessions Tour

I understand that you don't wanna glamourize her or anything but there is nothing wrong or biased about the Confessions Tour info. I did not put it there first, it was there for weeks and no one had a PROBLEM with it in the first place. Why is there such a big fuss about it now?

The Rolling Stones article does mention a tour in the opening paragraph. Why not let those read the article KNOW that fact. Why conceal the knowledge?

In your opinion it might be irrelevant but I do not share it and others agree with me. In my opinion, that info is more pertinent and relevant than the Forbes magazine info that is not necessarily that accurate. Let's compromise and leave both the Confessions Tour and Forbes magazine info there. Israell 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you guys keep the article summarize and additional information should be in it's separate article.--HW-Barnstar PLS 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely LOVE how you claim it's "impossible" to work with ME when YOU CONSTANTLY revert everyone's professional work and emphasize shallow, unimportant things like this tour into the opening paragraph. Wikipedia is not a F-ing publicity sheet, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you want to glorify Madonna, Israell, go start your own webpage or MySpace about her. Enyclopedia Brittanica (who has a Madonna article) would not put this tour in its opening statement about her. It is NOT CRUCIAL to a quick overview of her career. PatrickJ83 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, please calm down, Patrick. No need for curse words here. Second off, I agree with you - not only on the Confessions Tour part but on Israell's edits in general. I just can't see the reasoning behind his/her habit of trying to make the article look like a cheap fanzine rant. It's no favor to anybody, particularly Madonna.--Downtownstar 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um I didn't curse. Show me where I cursed. PatrickJ83 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a F-ing publicity sheet". Anyway, let's move on to discussing the article.--Downtownstar 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're misfocusing and dishonest. What the hell were my edits? Please, tell me. I did not add anything new. "fashion trendsetter", "Queen of Pop", the Confessions Tour info were all there for weeks. Already there when I first read the article. No one had a problem with them. No one said it looked cheap, biased or irrelevant.

I don't know what kind of demon possessed your spirits but there HAD to be a big fuss over puerile things. If those pieces of information caused such a problem, were so bad, they would have been removed a long time ago by established users.

I just don't understand the big fuss NOW! Just because I do not share your views does not mean I'm wrong. Mine are as valuable as yours and we need to work together if we want to achieve it.

I can PROOVE that I'm NOT the only one that sees "Queen of Pop" and the Confessions Tour info as pertinent. Someone ELSE just added them back! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.154.162.136 just put it back! I swear that's not me! You see? I ain't the only one in this assessment.

But the choice is yours... HONOUR the choice of the majority that sees "Queen of Pop" and the Confessions Tour info as pertinent, true, factual or keep on OBSESSING on deleting it. I'm backing off. No time to waste. Thank you. Israell 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I visited the History pages and as of October 31st 2002 Queen Of Pop was already there. "Madonna is the stage name used by Madonna Ciccone, a pop singer considered by many to be the queen of popular music. She has had a long career that has been full of success and controversy."

I went to the Bette Midler article and saw that: "Bette Davis Midler (born December 1, 1945) is an American singer, actress, and comedian, also known to her fans and especially in gay culture, as The Divine Miss M." You see? They put her title, The Divine Miss M, there! They don't see it as so irrelevant! Israell 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of your excuse of what "everyone else" did or supposedly did. PatrickJ83 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could everyone try to calm down and focus on the main objective - trying to improve the Madonna article. I sincerely believe that's what everyone is trying to do, but approaching it from different directions. The "Queen of Pop" thing is not the biggest problem here. There's a sentence in the article that describes Madonna as one of the most important people in the history of the world. Really, that kind of overstatement does her a disservice. She's made an incredible, unique contribution to pop music, culture etc but that's barely acknowledged in favor of a bunch of meaningless praise. Can we please look at the entire article, and rather than give examples such as Bette Midler, which is not a particularly good article, please compare it to the various singers, actors, performers etc who are the subjects of featured articles. There are numerous "bad" articles that we could use as a rationale for the development of the Madonna article but I would prefer to draw inspiration from the best articles rather than the mediocre. There is some justification for the "Divine Miss M" reference. She was actually known by that moniker early in her career as it was a character she created and for a time she was that character on and off-stage. Her stage show and album used the same name - it was a strong connection. Maybe not strong enough for the lead sentence, but it doesn't compare with the media created "Queen of Pop" tag.

Once again I draw your attention to WP:LEAD. Please take a few moments to read it so that we can at least try to tackle this from the same angle instead of all this bickering, which is doing nothing but harm. Nothing should be in the lead section that is not in the article because the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. If the "Queen of Pop" reference is so important, please discuss it in the article so it at least has some context. "She's commonly called "Queen of Pop". Big deal - what does that mean? There's no attempt to place it into any context, there's no meaning, no explanation. Please try to keep personal opinions aside and use WP guidelines to approach the article objectively. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? is also full of useful tips on what to aim for. This used to be a featured article (believe it or not), and there's no reason it can't be again. Rossrs 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Confessions Tour paragraph has appeared in the opening, this time with an extensive babble how her latest album has been an international bestseller. All this info is already in the article and doesn't belong in a summary of it.--Downtownstar 08:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. That wasn't me. Always visit the History page to see who added/removed things. I know you knew it wasn't me. Just a general message. Israell 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's Net Worth?

Why isn't this in the main section? Madonna is not only the richest woman in music, but she is also one of the richest in the world. A lot of people want to know about Madonna's Net Worth. I have done years of research on Madonna's fortune and i believe a lot of people want to know aswell.

Net worth

Madonna is the richest female singer in the world, and one of the richest self-made women in the world, with an estimated net worth of over $850 million. Her wealth is closer to $850m USD than the reported $665m. In 2004 alone, she earned more than $50 million with her Re-Invention Tour which became a new record for a female singer on The "Guinness Book of Records".[4]

. On ABC's "Life of Luxury", which aired on December 13, 2000, Madonna was named the richest female artist with an estimated fortune of $613,000,000. Madonna just may be a billionaire herself... if not today, then very shortly in time.

Aside from her music and films, Madonna is also involved in the magagement of MadGuy Films; Boy Toy, Inc.; Webo Girl; Siren Films; Slutco, Inc..

Maverick Records was the most successful "vanity label" in music history. While under Madonna's control it generated well over $1 'billion dollars for Warner Bros. Records, more money than any other recording artist's record label. She helped bankroll Alanis Morissette and Michelle Branch's careers.

Alvin Hall, presenter of World's Most Powerful on BBC News chose Madonna as the World's Most Powerful Celebrity, followed by Oprah Winfrey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QueenofPopfan4ever (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Constant changes

One of the problems of the articles are the constant changes. "In addition, Madonna holds the record for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist.", has been replaced by "In addition, Madonna holds the record (previously by Cher) for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist.", and finally by "She also holds the record for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist."

"She is often referred to as the Queen of Pop." has been added too.

Wikipedia should have a new policy. Edits should first be approved before featuring on articles. It would save us time, prevent vandalism and we would not have to keep on reverting/correcting them. Israell 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The constant changes can be an annoyance but sometimes they can lead to improvements, and I think that it's better to let people edit freely without having to get a consensus for each edit. That would be even more time-consuming so I think we should save the talk page for the difficult issues that provoke disagreement. What you are doing is exactly right - watching for edits that are problematic and fixing them. Some of the best articles have grown out of confusion and contraversy. Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue and Celine Dion are featured articles, and you know, they were all a huge mess and the subjects of a lot of edit warring at various times. You are one of several editors that cares about this article, and it'll end up being steered in the right direction just as Carey, Minogue and Dion were. It just takes patience and persistence. I wouldn't be too alarmed about all these recent edits. Rossrs 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

"She is also a fashion icon and (has a vagina) "ha dont make me laugh Madonna having a vagina??? Realist2 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC).", "August 16, 1917 -they added a fake birth year- I am a old fart, like literally 100 years old... I cant act or sing just to let you know.... thanks again.", "She is the ugliest person who ever made it into the music world. She needs to die. She looks like a troll. Tony thinks shes sooooooo hot though.", "maddona is now staring the the new cradle of filth video fuck me bastard. she is also a slut and sleeeping with dani filth the lead singer of cradle of filth." All 4 comments have been added from Jan. 28th to Jan. 30. by those 4 users: "Redmotherfive, 71.233.242.180, 81.145.241.87 and 69.130.190.15". I requested semi-protection.Israell 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's birthdate

please change her birthyear; it's currently listed as 1928 (age 78)!

203.79.252.193 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2/8/07 MADONNA HAS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST NOSTRILS...SHE LOOKS LIKE RAMOANA AFRIKA.

Last name

Does any know how to pronounce Madonna's last name (Ciccone)? Thanks!

"Chick - ony" (ony rhymes with "Tony") Rossrs 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's how an American would pronounce it. Like Americans pronounce "versah-cee". You pronounce it "chick-oney" trying to avoid sounding like "chick-oneyyyyyy". Dollvalley 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should actually be pronounced "chi-CO-nay" in Italian. Sirlizard 14:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but she's American by birth and pronounces it herself as "Chick - ony" whether you "approve" of it or not so it doesn't matter how the Italians or the French or the Chinese, for that matter, pronounce it. It's her damn name after all. CanadianMist 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I have edited the intro to give it a more encyclopedic feel. The information that has been removed is available elsewhere on Wikipedia in the article

• Madonna's achievements and awards which I have added a link to under the See also section. fritte 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently my edit did not sit well with Downtown723 and my edit was reverted within 20 minutes of being saved. I'm not getting into a revertwar over it, but I would like to know why both the link to Madonna's achievements and awards and my edit to the intro were removed, since the revert is described as a minor edit. [2] This is the edit I made. fritte 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Downtown723, but while you are waiting for him to comment, maybe you could read through WP:Lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article that follows and a long article such as this could and probably should have at least 3 paragraphs to adequately deal with it. If you have concerns about the POV tone of it, perhaps you could add that she is often criticised and maligned (this would be ok as the article contains discussion of this nature) to balance the POV. The lead is by no means perfect, and anything that can be done to improve it is a good thing to aim for, but just deleting most of it, doesn't improve it. Also, I will move this to the bottom of the page as new discussions should go at the bottom. Rossrs 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a big dispute recently and I love and I'm satisfied by the way Downtown723 settled everything. QOP was moved to the Criticism section and the rest remained on top. As Rossrs said, the intro is a summary of the article. In one moment, it gives the readers all that pertinent information. If they're in a hurry, can't read the whole thing and so on, they can still have an overview of her career and achievements. The Michael Jackson article has a MUCH MORE longer intro and there were no concerns. It gives those who visit his article much information in an instant. Celine Dion's article intro is longer too and does NOT address criticism even though the article does in the image section.

On another note, the article is much more stable since it was protected. No more vandalism, insults, foul language etc. Israell 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammy Wins

Seems like the number is 8. It kept changing. http://www.iconmadonna.com/index.php http://www.madonna.com/

Pointy Bra

I can't believe there's no picture or mention of the pointy bra! 71.222.200.138 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Madonna Wayne Gacy, member of the band Marilyn Manson, pulls his name from pop star Madonna, and notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

350 million records worldwide : World Best Selling Female Artist

I just saw on M6 Channel Madonna has sold more than 350 million records worldwide making her (according to the add) the world best selling female artist ever breaking then Mariah Carey record. I'm searching for the link. Readerweb 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please find the record cause I REALLY doubt that. Madonna has probably sold 250 million RECORDS (albums AND singles) total. If that.LAUGH90 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

At Michigan

Who is Damian Zikakis? Via google, he appears to be a success full accountant. Is he really notable enough to be mentioned in the article? I'm not going to edit anything myself, but I think the sentence about him should be removed. Mls737 05:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to him as non-notable (and trivial). Be bold next time!--Vbd | (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

STOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

STOP it with the horrid biased glorification in the intro! Who the hell put that "Immaculate Collection...highest selling album" bit in the intro? PURE fan glorification. This is NOT necessary to the intro and NOT an important aspect to Madonna's entire career. Keep this stuff OUT! PatrickJ83 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not me at all, and as you said, not necessary. Israell 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say stop with the biased comments altogether. Dollvalley 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Madonna has been unprotected today and there has already been some vandalism. User 75.14.63.9 wrote 'DEATH TO MADONNA FOR HER ANIMAL CRUELTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Israell 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing repeated vandalism from ip address: 75.14.54.140 with the same message as above. --Tbannist 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of aminal do you think she's going to adopt next. A nigger from Biafra, or a gook from Siam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.182.65 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's mother was Canadian

She was from Quebec which is in Canada, not America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.140.231 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing out this error. From what I can tell, Madonna's mother was born in the U.S. but was of French-Canadian descent. I have edited the text accordingly.--Vbd (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's mother, part II

Why did I revert User:Israell's phrase, ". . . Madonna Louise Fortin, an American who was of French-Canadian descent" back to "Madonna Louise Fortin, who was of French-Canadian descent"? Because the word "American" is implied and is therefore unnecessary. I don't think it adds any clarity to the sentence. If anything, it makes the sentence awkward.--Vbd (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would Someone Be Willing To Start A Fashion Section

Madonna has had so many looks over the years and now her own official fashion line. Would someone be up to creating a page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.82.248 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Acting and book bios

Why have the portions on Madonna's acting and book history been relocated to other pages? Both are integral parts of her history as an artist, and certainly have more place in her article than "diet and exercise" and "at the present". — Charity 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was way too long. As per Wiki standards, it HAD to be cut down. There are already sections dedicated to those topics anyway. Herewego123 05:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is way too fancrufty

The wording in some sections makes it very evident that it was written by excited fans, who were having the time of their lives. Case in point, the meticulously detailed song descriptions on the audio samples. Very fancrufty. - Jtpop 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the photos. I wouldn't dare touch it myself, since I know an edit war would begin. The page is entirely too long as well, and lacks any sources. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, go ahead! Herewego123 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Joni Mitchell once declared, "She has knocked the importance of talent out of the arena. She's manufactured. She's made a lot of money and become the biggest star in the world by hiring the right people".[67] Other popular entertainers like Janet Jackson, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey[68] have expressed disapproval of her artistic abilities, disdain, or criticism against her image and work.

These reference numbers refer to nothing.

I agree. This section of the article should either be deleted or given authentic references. --Anzuru 00:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

All the stuff about her adoption and Italian heritage needs to go

Madonna's "fat Italian thighs" and adoption flap doesn't warrant so much space! The Italian thighs bit is pure fan fluff and the adoption is no more than a small blip on her career. PatrickJ83 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Italian thighs, but no way about the adoption. That is not a small blip in her career.

Martha Graham

The article says that Madonna studied dance under the tutelage of Martha Graham, but I don't think that this is true. I know that she studied under Pearl Lang, who had been a protege of Martha Graham, but having studied under someone who studied under someone else does not qualify the statement that Madonna had studied with Martha Graham.

Could someone please close the quotation marks (") after "Gambler" in the Vision Quest soundtrack section? Thanks 152.23.77.38 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did away with these sections:

-Political views. This needed to go because it is purely personal and not essential to her career, which is why she is famous. She isn't famous for who she votes for or against. Nor does she bring her politics into her music (let's NOT start a debate about THAT ploise!) so her political views aren't important enough to warrant their own section. If people want to discuss these, they ought to be sprinkled throughout instead of getting their own unique section.

-Diet & exercise. I've deleted this because it was barely a few sentences long and that doesn't warrant its on section unless it is going to be expanded on greatly. However her exercising could be discussed in an entirely new section - perhaps an "IMAGE" section? PatrickJ83 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

agree - I think they needed to go. Let's just accept that every celebrity has a political opinion, even if their political opinion is that politics don't interest them, and let's keep it out of their article unless it has some relevance to their career or their public life. Some celebrities have "politicised" their careers - Madonna has not particularly done this, and without demonstrating relevance, it's trivia. Likewise her fitness regime and diet. Lot's of celebrities embark on some kind of program and unless they become Jane Fonda it's not especially noteworthy. Madonna is fit and trim. I'm sure that could be mentioned somewhere, but it doesn't need a section to do it. I think the article still needs a lot of work, but this is a small step in the right direction. Rossrs 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Politics has ALWAYS been part of Madonna's career, from religious to sexual politics. "American Life" album. Hello? I think you guys have missed a lot of Madonna's career. The Religious Right has been after her for years and she's always been an activist, including her vocal stance of AIDS. It's all political. She also was involved in supporting Wesley Clark. She has support Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, and supported Bill Clinton in the 90s. Did you see her documentary? Totally political. Her tours are political. Confessions incorporated a ton. 68.82.82.248 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Move arounds: does consensus agree?

I have moved some of the parts about Madonna's rebellion from "Influences" to "Criticism", as it relates to the Pope's criticism of her actions. Also, I moved a small section on Madonna's "praised appearance" in League of Their Own from "Influences" to the 1992 subheading above, where it speaks of her role, also. Mostly, I've made these changes to reduce redundancy, establish more consistency, and improve conciseness. If you have a problem with these changes, please notify me or edit where you see fit, as, from what I see, this page still needs work to regain "Featured" status(especially with "bloat" and missing citations). Perhaps if the "Criticism" can be more concise and brief, that would improve the overall picture.

I've tried to find some citations for information in the "Influences" section, but have yet to find some. It might have to be deleted if no information is found for citations, but I will try my best to fill in the blanks. Remember, most of the world has access to this article if they wish, and the right information is necessary for this site's credibility! Auto-Unsigned -->--EtTuBrute 04:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New Song/Album

I guess she recently cut a new album or released a song? Guess we could add in some stuff on this. Gautam ^Discuss 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So be Bold and add it in. Thats what someone told me once.Tourskin 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vague, a little

I ain't one to talk so i will go easy - some parts of the last few sections about criticism towards her is very vague even though its cited - it keeps going on about how "some people think this and that" and that her lyrics are "dull and boring". Since most of it is well cited, surely the identity of these individuals can be found in the citation, unless of course these citations don't state who gives her criticism. Other wise it should be cut down to a few lines or less. Tourskin 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Madonna v Jackson

I think there should be something to compare the to. Lets not forget people it was only because Jackson became the King that Madonna became the queen so i Hate to burst the bubble. She cant dance as well as him, she cant sing as well as him, she cant write as well as him, she doesnt make music videos like him and she doesnt have 5 albums that have each sold over 20 million copies. Also he was selling albums before she could read, his career is undisputed. Also no madonna fan can cover this up by simply saying "well Jacko is wierd" because the fact that he is strange and still outsold madonna actually strengthens my argument. On top of that the real queen show down is between Madonna, Diana Ross ,mariah or janet Jackson. In the 90`s she was only the 3 most successful female behind Mariah and Janet. That said I do actually like her especially her songs mid 90`s onwards. I would also like to congratulate her on her latest album Confessionsn it was something different in todays boring music of emo bands that have one album and fall into complete darkness after.Realist2 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh No, they didnt even fight in a national tv and this is an encyclopedia.--SuperHotWiki 12:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all subjective and opinion dosen't belong in an encyclopedia article. Especially "she dosen't make music videos like him." Um.. Last time I checked MADONNA has been nominated and won more VMAs than any other artist. She is the most successful artist in MTV history with 74 nominations and 19 wins. She really is the top music video maker.

Let me also add that Madonna has never called herself the "Queen of Pop". It's a name everyone just called her because it's just the obvious. Michael Jackson proclaimed him "King of Pop". No one would have thought to call him that if he hadn't thought of it himself.

• No, he didn't. Fans started calling him that.

Please please please you dont actually believe that tabloid rubbish that jackson proclaimed his title do you? have you notice its mostly said in the tabloids because they just try to belittle his achievements. The comment below is laughable that is not what it says at all, it says she`s the most successful female nothing more. Why not read the beginning of the main article before you say silly things be cause the first thing it says in most successful FEMALE . the sales he achieved in 5 albums has taken her 10 or more. thats just a fact. I do like her though but im just speaking the truth,Realist2 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is lovely and all (really, it is, you both get cookies ), but it has nothing to do with the article. Regardless of who's a bigger star (I really don't care), the two are not closely related and do not have a public feud (in the vein of Aguilera and Spears, at least). None of this belongs in the article. If you want to discuss who's better, take it elsewhere; talk pages are for discussing articles. ShadowHalo 07:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's really great but all I did was correct your statement about Michael Jackson being the biggest music video star. He still can't compare with Madonna's success at the VMAs.

WRONG again

The book of world records did NOT list Madonna as "one of the most successful female recording artists". It listed her as THE most successful you stupid jealous Mariah Carey fans.

And NOW it says about the Confessions tour in the middle of the article, "it was one of the biggest grossing tours by a female artist." No. It is THE biggest grossing tour by a female artist. It's apparent whoever is editing this article is trying to make Madonna be "one of" the biggest female artists and not THE biggest as the record books suggest.

So Im confused what do you believe, that shes the biggest female (which is what I believe) or have you converted yourself into believeing she is THE biggest and has sold more tham MJ, or Elvis? Realist2 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe she is the biggest female artist. I certainly don't think she's the biggest artist ever. The Beatles are undoubtably the biggest ever followed by Elvis and Michael Jackson (although I think MJ and Madge are very close). I'm saying she is undoubtably the most successful female artist by far. Forbes magazine has her listed as the #4 richest woman in the world!

Good your not one of them crazy fans then. One of the big difference between MJ and the rest of these icons is that he achieves soooooo much and yet hasn`t released that much material. Off the wall(20mil), thriller(104mil depending on if you believe guiness records, which madonna fans will not) , bad(30mil), dangerous(30 mil), history(18mil), blood on the dancefloor(6mil) and invincible(9mil). Thats only 7 albums with 226 million copies , madonna and the rest have had to release a LOT more material to match him. Basically what I am saying is MJ average album sales figure would be 226/7 =32mil. he`s averaged at 32 million copies an album, that is the biggest average ever!!!!!!!! This can be increased further if you take it in terms of UNITS which many do. History was a double album selling 18 mil or 36 mil UNITS. That would make it 244/7 = 35mil units average!!!!!!!!!

Of course I havent mentioned his many greatest hits albums , and havent mentioned his singles sales and havent mentioned his Jackson 5/ Jacksons career of singles and albums. However just looking at the above paragraph he has achieved a lot while doing so little. Realist2 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, and don't forget to mention his U.S. sales which stand very strongly on their own. It's pretty hard to believe Michael hasn't released that many studio records. Just look at the huge gap between album releases!

I no Jackson is bigger than madonna in America if you look at his entire career but im not so sure about his success in america (as a solo artist only), madonna might be bigger than Jacksons solo career in america and im being honest as a fan. His american sales stand as Off the wall 7 mil, Thriller 27 mil, Bad 8 mil, Dangerous 7 mil, HIStory 7 mil, Blood 1.5 mil, Invincible 3.5 mil. Thats slam on 70 million. If you look at the album sales (they are in cronological order) Thriller didn`t help his career that much in the U.S!!! His sales went almost straight back down to the level of "off the wall"!!!!!! Not that thats terribly bad or anything 8/7 million in america is still huge. Despite the fact it brought MTV to life, helped end racism in music, it does make you wounder how much the americas really cared about thriller? obviously many will argue that his singles sales did improve after thriller, and it did boost his international career significantly. But why did his sales go back down to off the walls sales in america straight away???? Maybe it was the negative press I dont no, he had changed sooo much by bad and dangerous. Any thoughts Realist2 09:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Abba have sold more than Madonna, as of 2004 they have sold over 370 million worldwide

Realist2, last time I checked Michael Jackson was not a FEMALE. Everything you bring is very subjective and some of it perhaps true, but this is not a Michael Jackon vs. Madonna debate. 70.178.224.5 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I changed the picture but it was reverted, so it's probably best to discuss now. I really don't think Image:Madon1.JPG should be used; she looks like she's smelling her armpit. Her arms are also straight up in the air, making the image very tall. I think Image:Madonnact.JPG would do a much better job. ShadowHalo 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

the second picture is much better, she looks too man like in the first, she`s an attractive woman, the second is better.Realist2 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded and own both pictures. The original one is old and already used on the Tour page. We had that for about a year. The current one is beyond hot and shows Madonna in action. I went out of my way to find free images for this and ShadowHalo, saying that she looks like she looking at her armpit and removing it is not consensus and you should realize that which I hope you now do. Maddyfan 17:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if you took the pictures. Content on Wikipedia is not owned. And I never said there was a consensus that the image was bad. However, I don't need a consensus to support every edit I make. Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that people are supposed to make edits. If you want to have an article which you control, I recommend creating a fork somewhere else. ShadowHalo 21:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people are suppose to make edits. However, what do you think the TALK page is for? ShadowHalo, removing an image, and image that is hard to find for free because you don't like it, is not really contributing to the betterment of Wikipedia. Get your head out of your backside. One person will like one picture, and another will not. It will result in back and forth edits. A consensus IS needed for such matters so we don't have an edit war. You either like an image or you don't. There isn't a compromise there, a middle ground, which is why discussing it is the best way to deal with that issue. I never said "I" had to review the issue and then make a decision. I said open up the topic on the TALK page and have others discuss it first. Giving your reasoning as "She looks like she's looking at her armpit" is a pretty lame excuse. What would you have done if another person didn't agree with you and just reverted it back, which is exactly what happened? If you would have let it go, fine. But if you really have a problem with the image and want to revert it to some older one, simply discuss it with everyone here so we don't go back and forth. People still fight over her full given name. Look Live Earth is coming up in a week. I'll be getting more free images. The most up to date ones. Why don't I upload about three, and then we can all vote on which one we like best? Maddyfan 06:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here had previously lobbied for the inclusion of that particular image, so ShadowHalo wasn't to know if you disagreed with its removal before it occurred. Maddyfan, you've been told this many times before — you cannot expect that all users should discuss their edits on the talk page to make sure everyone agrees, and you certainly can't have them do that just so you can voice your disapproval and demand that the edits not take place. Though talk page discussion should precede potentially controversial edits, most edits — including ones that replace one free-licensed image with another — are uncontroversial and do not need to pass muster for consensus beforehand. What's quite odd is that ShadowHalo was the user to initiate any kind of discussion here, and now you're emphasising the importance of talk page discussion and consensus, accusing ShadowHalo of not working co-operatively with other editors — this is perhaps even odder given your history of WP:OWN violations. Your thinly veiled attempts to strong-arm out of "your" articles editors with whom you disagree didn't work before, Maddyfan, and they won't work now.

Oh, and if you write another comment like "Get your head out of your backside", you'll be blocked from editing for personal attacks again. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting argument. Of course going nowhere. The "arm-pit-sniffing" snap is actually more representative of Madonna today (or rather until yesterday - anyone seen her 1940s look at Live earth last night?) Achitnis 09:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's musical genres

I think besides Pop-Dance, Synthpop, Electronica, R'n B and Hip Hop we should also include Jazz, Funky and maybe Country genres too, since she has made several such songs.

Jazz, yes. The others, no. Maddyfan 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Her Erotica album contained many funky elements imo. And as for country, well, she has made several country songs (to be honest, only 3, lol), so you're right, maybe that doesn't count. Also we could mention musical, since that is also a different genre - and she definiately made one ;). (kismoha)

Sanskrit shlokas

"Madonna's pronunciation, in her recital of Sanskrit shlokas taken from the opening hymn of yoga taravali for her album Ray of Light, had been declared incorrect by Sanskrit pandits of Benares and, the material girl learnt the basics of the correct pronunciation of Sanskrit words from an eminent scholar, Dr B P T Vagish Shastri through telephonic chats arranged by the BBC, London.[16][17]"

This sentence doesn't make sense to me (was her pronunciation actually wrong or not? and also: "the material girl"? "telephonic"?), but I'd rather not edit myself as I don't know anything about the subject. Alessandriana 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

U of M mention missing

The fourth paragraph of the bio section begins: "She left at the end of her sophomore year in 1978...", but there's no indication of what she left. I haven't looked at this article in several months, but it used to have a sentence or two about attending U of M after high school. The way it reads now though, makes her a high school dropout. - Jdha 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Madge and Gwen

I discovered on a site that she is a distant cousin of Gwen Stefani. Gwen's great-aunt's mother-in-law shares the same last name with Madonna.I can`t change the page to include this because is semi-protected.Could someone please add this?I think it`s kinda important...

That's not important; that's trivia. 17Drew 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links Request

I would like to request the following link be added for inclusion under the External Links area:

• Madonna discography at Discogs

Thank you!

Deleted (citations needed)

I deleted the citations needed template in the first paragraph because anyone whose even fairly familiar with the artist will know that. þ 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

thats irrelevant if someone doesnt no it for sure then a source is needed, if not it can be deleted. Realist2 06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But if you look at the contingency within biographical articles; citations are needed for specific facts. It's somewhat awkward citing something you can get off of any other website. It seems somewhat cheesy. þ 06:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I guess I see your point. þ 06:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

it might seem fussy to some but before I became fully aware of her music, when I just liked her main hit singles I was unaware that her work was particuary political, it was only when I bout the albums individually that I noticed her political work. this just needs sourcing to be safe, uncase its simply deleted. Realist2 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are better sources out there to support this claim. I don't think websites like yuddy.com have enough authority. Aquarius • talk 20:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several sources I found which include the information postulated, however yuddy.com is the only one I have found in which the information is gathered into one paragraph. On a related note it has to be said that Citation requests on this page have got out of control ie: one requesting that a source is given to support the claim that the Who's That Girl Tour took place in 1987!

(Apex156 11:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

no the tag is for it being her 6th US #1 actually. Realist2 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Go two sentences below that (next Tag). You appear to have missed it.

(Apex156 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry my mistake, didnt look in correct place , I also put the tag in wrong place, I changed it putting it next to the word successful , I think it would be pov to call the tour succesful without a source, the world could easily be removed by anyone seriously opposed to it. Realist2 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will try to find references concerning the Who's That Girl Tour's stats etc. but if none are found in say a week "succsessful" should be edited.

(Apex156 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm glad to see references were actually put in...þ 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

philanthropist

philanthropist should be added to her main title this has been alot of work for her too!

If you can please add this I would appreciate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milla2007 (talk • contribs) 07:51:01, August 2, 2007 (UTC).

Opening salvo is a mess, AGAIN!

Someone please remove the sales figures. Just fancruft - "highest selling" is good enough. I would remove but all those inside citations make it complicated. THANKS! PatrickJ83 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Madonna Years Active

I have noticed that in Madonna's info box that it has listed there that she has been active since 1982. I was under the impression that she was a drummer in a band called "The Breakfast Club" in the late 1970s and early 1980s and also sang and wrote songs since the late 1970s... Jdcrackers 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, for sake of clarity, we're sticking with her solo career. PatrickJ83 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos

How come are only 5 pictures with Madonna?.Don't you think that a photo from Blond Ambition Tour,and a screen shot from Like a virgin;Frozen or Hung up videos should be added?Thank you!thesweetlamb.

madonna and her French-canadian roots

On geneology.com it lists her french canadian lineage. she is celine dion's cousin. it would be useful to add it to a trivia section and a section for any cultural impact she has made, with references of course. but her page does need to be shortened. why not have just a list of names of past relationships? btw, her lesbian affairs with jenny shimizu and sandra bernhardt are missing, so the tag that she's bisexual is needed. 206.47.78.150 06:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)UputtheEMOinmylEMOnade

She's relative with Gwen Stefani to.

Question

Are her political views really necessary on here? It would somewhat shorten her page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.78.150 (talk) 06:22:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Maddona's name: A question

This sounds like a daft queston, but how do you pronounce "Ciccone"? Thanks St91 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft

This article is more flattering than Madonna's own website. I'd advise people to clean it up. A kiss-ass article from start to finish, it's no surprise that it was demoted from featured article status. Orane (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In reading the article, I do not agree. If anything, there is a mix of good and bad statements on her career. Not flattering at all in some places, but she has had periods of bad publicity. The reason why it was demoted as a feature article is here: [[3]] back in 2005 and not relevant now. It would still not meet the criteria. Maggott2000 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone fixes the intro, then we can think about discussing the rest of the article. The intro is supposed to set the tone for the rest of the article. It does not, and should not, list all of her accomplishments (including incorrect, manual addition of sales). Orane (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to enforce you own pov, and in looking at other sites you assist in editing, your pov is inconsistant specifically towards this article. I will now also look into these other articles(i.e. Celine Dion, Whitney Houston). However I will amend the introduction to make it set the tone of the article (and where does it specify this is the case? Rather than being pov). As for the sales data, you are incorrect in your assessment as you have been told. For yourself and other editors, I will expand why it is wrong. The sources quoted are stating two separate facts one for albums one for singles. It is NOT combining them, nor is the article. Your issue is that one article states 175m for albums, whilst the other 200m. Note that the one that quotes 175m is older than the IFPI reference, and before her sales of her last 3 albums, as well as continues sales for the older albums. Although known sales for these 3 equate to just over 10 million, this would still be 185m. IFPI is the main authority on sales, so their figure has to be considered as a verified source. Then let us assume that the IFPI article is a 'combined total' then subtracking the 75m singles, this gives Madonna 125m album sales. This is totally below any reported sales. Therefore your assumption and reasoning is also incorrect. Maggott2000 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a whole lot to learn about how Wikipedia operates. First and foremost, you are not supposed to "assume," "subtract," "add," or "reason" anything. You are not an authority figure on who has sold what. That is called original research, and it is against our policies (read No original research, and especially Do not synthesize). Second, feel free to look into "Whitney Houston" and "Celine Dion." I really don't care about the first article. "Whitney Houston" is poorly written, in my opinion. The only reason I edit it is to try to maintain a sense of neutrality, when people refer to her as "pop icon" or a "pop diva", or that she is the "most influential" singer of all time proof, proof, proof. I'm sure "Celine Dion" is stable. And the introduction focuses more on summarizing her career (as it should), than listing every record she holds.

Agreed, that is why it is not in the article. Wikipedia is encyclopedic - that you have to agree on. What constitutes acceptance into an article is that it is verifiable. Both these links are, so you are not enforcing wikipedia policy, you are enforcing your own pov. Maggott2000 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

btw. from your talkpape: "Actually, it is your assessment of sales data that is incorrect. It is well-known that "album sales" are often taken to mean total worldwide sales; not every source will specify x amount of albums and x amount of singles. What many editors are doing (the Madonna article being the most-potent example) is to combine two different sources, using the highest figures of each source to suit their purpose." The first assessment is pov, and/or original rsearch. The second comment is incorrect, as the articles are not a combination, do not imply combination, and although I am now specifying my own pov, IFPI certainly knows the difference between albums and singles. Refer to what constitutes album. Therefore to date you have not provided any non pov why this should be removed. If you can so, please add and it can be debated. Please do NOT remove until agreement is reached. Maggott2000 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, as soon as I have time, I will be nominating List of best-selling music artists for deletion, as per our policies on original research. Orane (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. Feel free to nominate. All lists and discographies would fit into this catagory, so feel free to be consistant and ask them all to be deleted. Pleased at least be consistant in your approach, as this is sounding more vendictive than acting as a professional editor. Maggott2000 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are loads of overtly negative statements along with overtly positive ones, does not make the article neutral/unbiased. Many parts of the article have obviously been written by people who either love or hate her. These parts need to be chucked out so the article sticks to the facts and presents them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's objectives.

??

What happened with the first picture?The one from Live 8.Somebody add a picture there please.Maybe U Drew17.

I disagree! Madonna is the best!

This article does not flatter Madonna enough. It needs more text about her being the Queen of Music and her unrivaled quality as a lyricist. I would add all of this but I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then get one! It's easy.

Create an account now

(secure server)

 Andreas  ^(T) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This tag has been added without reference in the discussion as required. Therefore adding it open for discussion. Creator of the neutrality tag has made some comments under 'fancruft' which I assume is the reason for the tag. I personally cannot comment on the reason for the neutrality tag, as I have no interest in what is written just that it is referenced and accurate. Other editors, please comment Maggott2000 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

From Wikipedia:Lead section: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.. And as has been mentioned by Orane this can be improved, and needs to be improved. Can someoe take up this challenge? Maggott2000 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be. I reverted it. It was FINE AS WAS - it does NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT need any extra stuffing, or talk about singles sales, or ANYTHING. LEAVE THE INTRO ALONE NOW PLEASE!! PatrickJ83 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, calm down. Please behave yourself if you want to have a productive discussion. You don't have to shout to make your point. I really don't believe that I have to explain anything further. All you have to do is read the excerpt presented by Maggott2000 (as well as my edit summary here). Orane (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

# 3.1 Religion, Ethnicity and Family

Section # 3.1 Religion, Ethnicity and Family

What is the point of this section? The few sentances which actually make much sense are filled with speculation and "weasil words". It hardly contributes much to the factuality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.104 (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)