Talk:Madonna

Queen of Pop

She has been given this title for quite some time now. Just like Michael Jackson's page refers to him as this, she should be given the same treatment. She's his female equal in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.213.121 (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. However, some editors had issues with that saying it glamourized her too much or she's not referred to that as often as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley are (King of Pop, King of Rock). Besides, countless people will scream their heads out and insist the Queen of Pop is another female star, usually their favourite one or the "hottest" one at the moment.

They refuse to understand Madonna was the first to be called that and that such a title can't be passed on to others. We could list dozens of respected sources such as Rolling Stone & Billboard that refer to Madonna as the Queen of Pop but it would never be enough for some editors.

That being said, I vote yes. 2 votes for that inclusion as of now. Israell (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Glamorized her too much??? Highest selling female artist in history, biggest selling tour by a solo artist, 12 UK# 1s, 8 US #1s, her half time performance set the world record for highest rated TV event in US history(beating the game itself), 300Million Albums sold. What's there to glamorize? The facts speak for themselves. Also, I completely agree that the it's not a title that gets passed down. She's the ONLY performer who's been referred to by this title for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.213.121 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason why Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson are referred to as "Kings" is that they are both dead. After one dies they are often glamorized and made out to be bigger than what they were before they died. Madonna is no exception. She definitely deserves the title of Queen of Pop but this will not be set in stone like Elvis and Michael until she is dead. And glamorizing her too much? Pages for Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are glamorized just as much as Madonna which should not be. Seeing as how Madonna has many more accomplishments and Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are just hot singers at the moment. I truly find that this is not fair especially considering Madonna's fanbase is far larger than Gaga's and is about the same as, if not equal to, Michael Jackson's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.61.49 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OF COURSE she's the Queen of Pop, just the numbes show she beats any contender blindfolded, and one just has to google queen of pop and see that Madonna's name is in 99% of the pages. All the media call her the queen of pop, and she's by far the most successful female artist in the history of pop music (music, let alone pop). Yes, Queen of Pop she is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.15.149 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree on this point. Madonna is beyond any doubt the most successful female artist in history. She's been around for three decades, all the while changing and adjusting her image to appael to new generations and setting the standards for other artists to follow, as well as countless women around the world. I'm 25 years old, and even though I haven't experienced her performances then, I recognise the enormous role she has played in breaking social taboos around sexuality, strong women and recognition of gay people. Besides, where would great artists like Britney Spears, Christina Aquilera, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga be if Madonna hadn't set an example to follow? A great woman who fully deserves the title of greatest woman in music as awarded to her as awarded tot her by the influential VH1 (see: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1679384/madonna-music-greatest-woman.jhtml) So yes, give this amazing artist the recognition she deserves and make this article refer to her as the Queen of Pop! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.121.9 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well what about the fact that Rolling Stone magazine named her the "Queen of Pop?" Does that account for anything?

Dancer and Choreographer

The opening paragraph makes no mention of Madonna being a DANCER or CHOREOGRAPHER. Would you please add these two defining characteristics/qualifications there? Considering that she started her entertainment career as a DANCER, she considers herself a dancer first, she dances in all her videos, performances and concerts and that she CHOREOGRAPHS much of her work as well as contributing to others and influencing many contemporary and subsequent performers, and the culture at large (in style, moves, parodies, imitators, satires, copycats, etc) I think these should even be mentioned first and second (or maybe second and third, after singer).  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.215.79 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Songwriting credits.

Why is she credited under the name "Madonna" for songwriting credits? Aren't these all supposed to be by last name? DanielDPeterson + talk 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Madonna's Queen of Pop Title!

The media has been constantly referring to her - and she is widely known as - the Queen of Pop! Michael Jackson's wikipedia page includes this type of information about his "King of Pop" nickname in the first sentence. Shouldn't it also be included here as well?

I'm sure anyone can find countless reliable sources that call Madonna Queen of Pop so I leave that up to you..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.105.69 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I say "no" because the moniker has been applied to others. Every cite calling Madonna the Queen of Pop can be countered by a cite saying another person is the Queen of Pop. It's not universally acknowledged. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Usher has been called King of Pop amongst others, yet MJ is universally known as such despite counterclaims by a minority of articles. The same goes for Madonna really. "Queen of Pop" is sort of her nickname despite the fact that others like Katy Perry, Britney or Gaga have been occasionally called that by their fans or by a few articles. There must be a reliable source that actually discusses the origin/credibility of that title for Madonna. I will search for such an article later then, as I am on my phone!

I also recently read that the media started referring to Madonna as Queen of Pop in the mid-late '80s, which was before the media crowned MJ as King of Pop; and in fact MJ referred to himself as King of Pop later, while Madonna never had to refer to herself as Queen to gain that title, which is very interesting. I will have to find the article supporting that as well

People such as Usher, George Michael and Justin Timberlake have all been called the King of Pop. Why is it that Madonna is a different case. The only conceivable reason is that Michael Jackson was not the sole person to have the name until his death. So I'm assuming the same will happen with Madonna. --69.89.105.69 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote YES or YAY! Madonna was the FIRST to be called the Queen of Pop (rightfully so because of her accomplishments) and such titles CAN'T be passed down to others; not now, not EVER! The fact other female singers are now also called 'the Queen of Pop' is irrelevant. If enough people vote for it, the Queen of Pop shall be included in the lead the same way it has for Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. So far, it's 4 against 1. (YAY: Israell, 69.89.105.69, 98.181.61.49, 108.23.213.121 - NAY: Binksternet) Israell (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The King of Rock and Roll has been associated with a number of artists, just like Queen of Pop. I'm against including honorifics in an introduction of any article (Elvis and Jackson included) because its irrelevant in a summary overview of a biography. Saying a title cannot be passed down is a matter of opinion, not fact. Numerous quality sources have called other female acts the Queen of Pop for their own unique accomplishments and while I don't agree with all of them, the fact is they're still verifiable. Case in point:

• More than 70,000 Black, White and Brown South Africans crammed into Johannesburg's Ellis Park Stadium for to an event billed as "Whitney--The Concert for a New South Africa." As if to emphasize the new power of the electronic medium and the new weight of Whitney Houston, the concert brought together South Africans of all races and parties and temporarily linked South Africa and the United States via an HBO hookup which carried the proceedings to millions. The superstar gave concerts in Durban and Cape Town, toured Soweto and went to several children's homes and orphanages. Making her first trip to Africa, she was overwhelmed by the reception and cried openly on the shoulders of President Nelson Mandela. There was also a private visit to Swaziland, where the "Queen of Pop Music" visited King Mswati III. - Ebony 50. 4 (Feb 1995): 116. issn: 00129011
• Mariah Carey is unstoppable. With 17 No. 1 singles since her career began in 1990, Mariah is the reigning queen of pop. - Scholastic Scope 50. 1 (Sep 3, 2001): 16-17. issn: 00366412
• If Ella Fitzgerald is the queen of jazz, Billie Holiday first lady of the blues, and Aretha Franklin the queen of soul, then who is the queen of pop? In the 1990s, it would seem to be a three-way tie between Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion. Certainly all three have their devotees and detractors, but their presence has been inescapable. - Popular Music and Society 25. 3/4 (Fall 2001): 1-10. issn: 03007766

More Importantly mentioning Madonna as the Queen of Pop is already in the legacy section, where the supporting text can actually give the term merit and give the reader a clear understanding of why its been used. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Madonna was named Queen of Pop in a poll by Rolling Stone magazine which is the biggest music magazine there is behind Billboard. Does that account for nothing? Considering this was a very recent poll. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-queen-of-pop-20110706 (98.181.62.167 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

They did the exact same thing with Lady Gaga (and 15 other female artists) just last year. Introducing the Queen of Pop wonly proves there is a very, very wide range of discussion on the issue and everyone from fans to critic to music organizations will put in their two cents. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo

On the article for one of the most famous people in the world, one of the most used websites in the world is using as its principle photograph a four-years old, out of date, rather unattractive, image. There's got to be better, more recent Madonna photos in the public domain than that. I'm not a wiki contributer, just a casual reader, but coming at this from a new angle may highlight things that others who are here all the time overlook. Could one of you people please change that photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.66 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Public domain photos of famous people, especially ridiculously famous people like Madonna are nearly impossible to come by. Any clear, attractive photograph of a celebrity is usually by a paid photographer who has legal rights to the photo. These are all the freely licensed photos wikipedia currently has access to. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then why not show a public photo of Madonna in her prime? I mean im sure that would be much easier to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.61.49 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the subject is still living, its policy to use the most current (and more importantly - freely licensed) photo available that clearly shows the individuals face (not obstructed by objects, hats, glasses, etc). The attractiveness of the photo is a luxury, not a valid consideration when there are limited resources. Its sucks, but that's the way the ball bonces when it comes to contributing to a free encyclopedia. As I stated above This link shows all the freely licensed photos wikipedia currently has access to. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I really do not care about the attractiveness of the photo. I just care about accuracy. She looks nothing like this anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.61.49 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the fair use rules. Just because she is "one of the most famous people in the world" we are not going to include a copyrighted image despicting a living person. Unless you can provide a "PD" picture of her, we cannpt do something. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What about using the MDNA album cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.67 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Album covers are protected by copyright. They can only be used under fair use for their own individual articles, not to illustrate the likeness of a living person. Otherwise its deleted. Unless you personally find Madonna and take a picture of her (or know someone who has) and upload it yourself, we're probably not going to get a new PD picture of her for a while. Some professional photographers do upload their own photos but don't expect a full gallery to pop up overnight. Its just not going to happen. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A 2012 photo was uploaded on Commons]. 11Jorn ^(talk) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We can use the photo after its OTRS permission confirmed. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The photo is from madonnarama.com, which notes that it is a fansite and that "All logos, trademarks and pictures are property of their respective owners."[1] Since madonnarama.com isn't the copyright holder of the uploaded photo, receiving permission from madonnarama.com to upload the photo of Madonna to commons still would not be enought to use the photo in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Who says madonnarama.com isn't the copyright holder of that photo? The statement in its main page doesn't automatically mean that all photos posted on the fansite aren't their own work. As long as the photo is not proven to be copyright violation, we can replace with the current infobox photo. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposed use of the photo under a "innocent until proven guilty" rationale. Even a casual glance at the photo and you can tell it was taken by a professional photographer with special access to the VIP area where she & other celebrities intentionally pose for publicity photos. This photo is an obvious copyright violation and should not be used in any Wikipedia article. Senator2029 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that rationale. While I may not be a "professional photographer" I was indeed given "special access" to take the lead photo that has been up since 2008, and frankly in my opinion (I'm biased) it is a good photo. It's not some cameraphone shot from a fan. I was put in the A-pen of photographers at the Tribeca festival, shooting next to professionals, to capture that image and its derivatives. So to say that the proposed update is verboten because it "looks professional" is flawed if the comparison is to mine. As a Madonna fan, I agree my photo isn't my favorite "look" she has done in recent years and it would be great to get a new shot - I love her new look, more than the I Am Because We Are photo shoot. But I don't think it's an unflattering photo of her. It would be optimal to get a more recent shot. But I don't think my photo looks less professional (from at the moment it was taken) than the one proposed to be used - and you can google image search and compare my shot of her at this event, compare it to "professional photographer" shots, to come up with your own opinion. --David Shankbone 04:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

David, I wouldn't worry. Obviously, Senator2029 was unprepared for a photo from a connected A-list Wikipedian. I think your photo is the best we have for the purpose, and it should stay. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to say to David I actually think the current photo is quite fine, but I think editors unfamiliar with policy think we can just whip up a sexy/dramatic/glamor shot from a photo shoot anytime we please. Wikipedia is very, very lucky to have an editor like you who is also a photographer. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Charity and Controversy

I think that a section should be made for Madonna's charity work over the years. with her starting her nonprofit organization for African children and adoptions. Also a section should DEFINITELY be made for her controversy over the years considering she is the most controversial entertainer to ever live. Michael Jackson being a very close second. But unlike him, Madonna has had controversy since her very beginning with people saying she was a one hit-wonder and that she sounded like Minnie mouse on helium to her following album when she sang Like A Virgin which in itself attracted a great amount of controversy. Also on the same album, the song Dress You Up received a very large amount of controversy from parents for its strong innuendo. Then of course came her scandal from the 10 year old nude photos. Then the uproar regarding the song Pap Don't Preach and its pro-life lyrics but to some promoting teen pregnancy. Then the Pepsi commercial fiasco regarding the Like A Prayer innuendo and themes. And that's just the 80's alone so I would not be surprised if an entire page was able to be filled with the amount of controversy she has received/is receiving. Not to mention the fact that people have literally debated for years about her with the "Madonna Studies" and all.(98.181.61.49 (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

A controversy section would place those events out of the context of her life and career and give them too much of a spotlight, which doesn't fit with WP:NPOV. The article includes her controversies over the years within the article's "Life and career" section, which helps create a representative survey of the relevant literature that represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. As for charity work over the years, feel free to edit the "Life and career" section with her charity work over the years if it seems to fit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The controvery section was there some times ago, but was completely removed and rewrote to the 'life and career' section. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I am assuming that this rule only applies to people as i have seen a controversy section on many other pages. I understand the neutral point of view part but I feel that it would only portray her negatively if you didn't show her reasons for doing things, thereby balancing out the negative and positive. For instance, with the nude picture scandal, she said that she felt embarrassed and humiliated and that her fans would all turn their backs on her because of the pictures. But she felt that the best way to handle it was to pretend like it was insignificant. While the former is her true feelings for the incident, the latter is the point of view that is shown in the 'Life and Career' section (which may portray Madonna in a negative way rather than how she truly felt). Of course the section would portray her in a negative way if the only things that were shown were insulting quotes instead of the views of both sides. Not only that, if these are true events why should it matter? Its not like you are giving your own opinion on the matter. You would just be stating Madonna's actions over the years and the reaction/impact that they had on the world. It would not be negatively portraying her unless opinions were stated by the user writing and/or the opinions of just Madonna or her critics rather than them both. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

"Controversy" sections are not mandatory. If they exist in another articles, that is irrelevant here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would actually read, I said that I was assuming. I never said that since theres a controversy section on other pages that there should be one here. Secondly, you are only looking at one sentence from the entire paragraph so I'm pretty sure that you didnt pay attention to too much of any of it including the sentence that you read. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

I see your point about balancing out the negative and positive, but Wikipedia merely tries to achieve proportionate views rather than balance out the views already in reliable sources. A good Wikipedia article will reflect the imbalance in any negative and positive imbalance in the relevant literature. Reliable sources don't normally divide their writing to include a controversy section, so a Wikipedia article having a controversy section wouldn't reflect what's out in the representative literature. Also, truth or true events isn't one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). With the nude picture scandal, the article now notes, "The publication of the photos caused a media uproar, but Madonna remained defiant and unapologetic. The photographs were ultimately sold for up to $100,000. She referred to the whole experience at the 1985 outdoor Live Aid charity concert saying that she would not take her jacket off because "[the media] might hold it against me ten years from now."" If you think more info is needed to better reflect that event in the article, please add to it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Madonna article once had a "criticism" section some felt was needed and it was removed some time ago for the same reasons some have just mentionned. It's better to discuss such things in the body of the whole article rather than in one specific section. Israell (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

***Respect*** of Consensus Reached

I now notice something... Formal (votes) or informal (no votes, just discussion) consensus is sometimes reached in order to settle a dispute or an edit war regarding statements included in the article, especially its lead.

The problem is that editors respect the consensus that is reached but weeks or months later, an editor simply decides to override the decision made and replaces it with another statement or simply deletes it without using this 'Talk' page first...

What's the point of debating here and reaching consensus if it can be overridden at any moment by any editor??? Makes no sense and it's a waste of time.

We've made it a point the term recording artist does not credit a songwriter and Madonna has co-written the vast majority of her material, especially when it comes to lyrics, and formal consensus was reached. It should also be noted that Madonna co-produced the majority the songs featured on her studio albums (as of 'True Blue'). I've just reverted that edit and the lead now reads "singer, songwriter".

Editors should discuss any major change in the lead here first. What do you think? Israell (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)