Jump to content

Talk:Madonna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 5 July 2014 (→Requested move 8: "good reason"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleMadonna is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleMadonna has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 28, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
January 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 23, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 23, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 5, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 8, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
May 15, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
September 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Hidden infoboxes

Error

At the end of the section for Music videos there is an error. it says in May 2014 Rolling Stone magazine named her the 4th highest grossing touring act. It was in fact Billboard magazine who named her this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.125.228 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My OCD spellcheck

Under the vocal style & Instruments section, this phrase:

"After two decades, Madonna decide to perform with guitar again during the promotion of Music"

Should read:

"After two decades, Madonna decided to perform with guitar again during the promotion of Music"

...as the content of the paragraph is in the third person/past tense, "decide" should be "decided"

Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scullard.L (talk • contribs) 03:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! Correcting..... Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most Influential Woman in History

http://www.evoke.ie/most-influential-women-in-history/ This is a huge accomplishment and needs to be added right away. Also Queen of Pop should be next to her name, just like Michael Jackson's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.102.226 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia page views are not means of popularity. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the article and immediately saw the lead with its superlatives: "unprecedented level of power," "Immense popularity" and so on. I'm going to trim the fawning portions, which (unsurprisingly) have no citations. Madonna is one of many singers but is not, as the article now implies, one of the greatest people who ever lived.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thabks for the catch. Article does need POV cleaning. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming =/= removing the whole block. I have reinstated it while deleting the non-neutral POV. Most of it is indeed critically discussed in the article body. Again, just to make it clear, I'm not for the fluffery that has seeped into this article in its legacy and other sections. But I'm against deleting whole blocks because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And the edit by Catherinejarvis particularly seemed problematic because instead of finding an interim solution the user deleting the whole portion. I hope the user is careful from the next time though. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential GAR

As the person who nominated this page for GA, I'm considering proposing it for reassessment as I think the problems of this page are worsening beyond belief. The version of the article I nominated successfully was by no means perfect, but I believe it to be far more neutral than the current state of the article. The two worrying aspects are the lead and the Legacy section, which I think have been incrementally expanded into sections with fansite-like writing and lots of cut-and-stick quotations about how influential and amazing Madonna is. This isn't how an encyclopedia entry should read. I hope that editors can help facilitate a re-write of these sections, either formally in a GAR or informally through talk page discussion and general editing, or failing this, I think the article could be helped by copyedits from editors not interested in the subject. Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 15:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio: A while ago you said you would attempt a re-write of the lead in your user space, did you start anything? I think the article would greatly benefit from that. However, if you didn't get round to it then don't worry, I'm sure we can figure something out! —JennKR | ☎ 15:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the legacy section is what bothers me the most. The lead can be definitely tweaked but the legacy section is too much. Give me a week's time, I think I can work on it in my sandbox. This week I would be busy completing some other assignments I had planned. How does that sound? I do not think it warrants a GAR based on two overflowing sections though. Just pretty much pruning the weed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GAR isn't quite needed, Jenn. I was thinking of touching it up in my own sandbox. Legacy is far too long. Taking a look at FA's such as Michael Jackson and Charlie Chaplin, we should opt for three or four paragraphs at most. IndianBio can take the lead section. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions. The reason why I considered GAR is because I think this article suffers the same problems Beyoncé (and other female pop-singer BLPs) did. The GAR process on that article, which most (including myself) felt was initially unnecessary and drawn-out, nevertheless led to a much stronger article than existed previously, particularly as it attracted useful external opinion. However, I'd much prefer to not go through that process and you both seem confident that it's unnecessary, so we'll review it informally. I'll go through the rest of the article in the coming days for copy edits, fixes, formatting, etc. I'll also be on hand to assist either of you with the lead or legacy sections, so drop me a talk page note or a note here and I'll assist. IndianBio: Take as long as you like, the same to you XXSNUGGUMSXX, if we can complete this by early/mid July I think that would be great! Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great then, we will have a great team in making this perfect, and maybe FA worthy (just kidding) :D —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was thinking of taking to FAC eventually, but not for quite some time. I do think, however, it would be nice to have this as "Today's Featured Article" for her birthday some year. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JennKR and XXSNUGGUMSXX: lets say we start the trimming of the article here at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/trim? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality

Adding Category:Bisexual entertainers. From page 147 of Madonna: An Intimate Biography: "Because Madonna has been frank about her bisexual nature". I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned in the article. Its mentioned in Bisexual Erasure and its been brought up on these talk pages a few times before. Zell Faze (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually holding back after finding the following quote from Madonna herself on page 66 of Madonna as Postmodern Myth: "Whether I'm bisexual or not is of no interest. My position on sexuality is that it is not necessary to have a position, whatever that may be, but it is necessary to be free to do what you want."
Additionally the following excerpt from her 1991 interview with The Advocate seems relevant.
Madonna: [Holding up a copy of Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin.] It’s incredible. What I hope is — maybe I’m being too idealistic — that my movie changes things in Hollywood in that direction. But like anything, it’s slow progress, two steps forward, one step back. Even though I dealt with some other-than-heterosexual themes in “Justify My Love,” unfortunately some people just saw it in a superficial way and didn’t really want to deal with it.
Advocate: Deal with what?
Madonna: The sexual themes in it. It wasn’t just about me. It’s about life, about human nature. I think everybody has a bisexual nature. That’s my theory. I could be wrong.
Advocate: Are you as kinky personally as your image makes you seem?
Madonna: Well, what do you mean by kinky? I mean, I am aroused by two men kissing. Is that kinky? I am aroused by the idea of a woman making love to me while either a man or another woman watches. Is that kinky? Also, just because I’m presented life in a certain way doesn’t mean I do all these things. It’s just something I choose to express.
What does everyone else think? I'm pinging lgbt@lists.wikimedia.org on this, not to WP:CANVASSING but to get their opinion as some folks there might be more knowledgeable on the matter and have more sources in either direction than I do. Zell Faze (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be added. Fooling around with another anonymous woman is not something notable. As far as I know, Madonna's never had a notable/long term relationship with a woman (never lived with one etc).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would back off on including this unless there's a quote from Madonna more explicitly claiming she's bisexual ("everyone has a bisexual nature" isn't strong enough). Including any potentially-misconstrued information about someone's sex life in a BLP is a big no-no. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna – I'm aware that this is a perennial request and has been repeatedly shot down. The argument that frequently comes up is that Mary and Madonna (art) are more notable. However, the singer's page has been viewed 640,000 times in the last 90 days - about 4 times as much as Mary (where "Madonna" isn't even the common name, as shown by the title and the lead section of that article) and nearly 19 times as much as the art. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And I think it's pretty obvious looking at the stats that most of our readers are looking for Madonna the singer.

PRIMARYTOPIC also mentions long-term notability and educational/cultural significance, which I'm sure will be brought up in opposition to this request, but given that the common name for the mother of Jesus, by far, is Mary, and the pageview stats, I think listing the singer as the primary topic with a hatnote at the top linking to Mary and a disambiguation page would be the most appropriate choice. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not appropriate to base primary topics on what some editors feel our readers should be educated on; it is appropriate to base it on what readers are most likely to search for. The cultural/educational significance part of PRIMARYTOPIC was addressed in the request. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article for Madonna the singer was viewed 2.43 times more in the last 90 days than everything on the current disambiguation page combined. That increases to 2.64 times when you omit the Beatles song Lady Madonna (which is unlikely to be known as simply Madonna), and 2.84 when you also omit the other articles related to Madonna the singer (her debut album and the 2001 biography). So while the singer may not be more notable, she is clearly what people are searching for if they're searching for her page nearly 3 times as much as any other Madonna. And I requested the correct move; requesting Madonna be moved to Madonna (disambiguation) would make it unclear which "Madonna" should be moved to the primary topic. This move implies that the current Madonna page will be moved to Madonna (disambiguation). –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is clearly the most common term people are looking for when they search "Madonna". I agree with Bluesatellite on the DAB listing, though In ictu oculi has a point about informing WikiProjects about this. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're comparing a short-lived, relatively unsuccessful band to a woman who is not just a pop star, but one of the most famous and well-known musicians (and women, for that matter) in history. Madonna is a name for Mary the mother of Jesus, but it's not her common name. Not even close. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read what I wrote? I said the common name for the mother of Jesus is "Mary". I also said that the primary topic of "Madonna" is the mother of Jesus. The two factors, common name and primary topic are separate factors, hence the example with the United States, showing that the two factors are separate and why "Mary" isn't located at "Madonna" but why "Madonna" can mean "Mary". It's just like the Avatar decision, where the religious topic is taken as the primary topic, even though recentism says the James Cameron franchise would be, and popculturally, the anime franchise would be, and where in recent books the computer representation of a user would be. In comparison to this topic here, the computer representation of a user would be Madonna in art, the religious topic would be Mary, and the recent pop culture phenomenon would be the singer. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a malformed request. Unless the nominator wants to merge the entire disambiguation page into a massive hatnote, this is missing the move request for the disambiguation page located at Madonna -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not meant to be only for 2014 and a little longer. The Madonna is likely to be of interest much longer, as are Madonna and Child paintings. Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Madonna the pop artist is a derivative of the original Madonna and making her the primary topic is just caving in to WP:RECENTISM and pop culture. Maybe in 2,000 years time if the singer's still more popular, we should reconsider. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily, I think you would have a point. But this is a unique case where "Madonna" is the exclusive name for the artist, but only a very secondary (not particularly common in the English-speaking world, and almost exclusive to a particular denomination of Christianity) name of the religious figure. How likely is it that the majority of our readers are going to search "Madonna" explicitly hoping to reach Mary's article? Mary is most certainly more educationally significant, but no one has demonstrated how the term - not the woman herself, the specific reference to her by that name - Madonna (in reference to Jesus' mother) is the primary topic as opposed to the singer. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Jenks24. Pageview statistics are flatly irrelevant in this case. The "greater enduring notability and educational value" criterion weighs incredibly heavily in favor of the Virgin Mary and artistic depictions of her. Mary is the actual PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Madonna. (Since supporters have suggested religious bias might play a role here, I'll add that I am a Buddhist, with no devotional attachment to the religious figure. My only attachment is to a love of history, and it is for that reason alone that I find this request galling and wrongheaded.) Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that Mary is more culturally and educationally significant than Madonna the Material Girl. But "Madonna" is not what she is commonly known by - Mary is by far her more common name amongst English speakers. Hence the proposal to mention Mary in a hatnote. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A subject may be a PRIMARYTOPIC for more than one word or phrase. (That is one reason among many for which Wikipedia uses redirects.) This is especially true for religious figures, who often bear many titles. Jesus is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the terms "Jesus", "Christ", "Prince of Peace", etc. The Buddha is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the terms Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni, etc. In much the same way, Mary is the PRIMARYTOPIC for both the terms Virgin Mary and Madonna. Being most commonly called "Mary" does not disqualify her from being the PRIMARYTOPIC for other terms and titles also. Xoloz (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But unlike the Jesus and Buddha examples, when someone says "Madonna", it's more likely than not that they're referring to the 1980s singer. When you type "Madonna" into a Google search, for instance, and look through the first several pages, nearly all of the results are about Ciccone. Google even suggests the singer, with her pictures, background information, link to her Wikipedia page, etc. on the right side of the results. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute that the singer is more often mentioned in casual conversation. I don't even dispute pageview statistics. I argue that this is a case where long-term academic significance outweighs those factors. The heart of the argument here is whether the usage criterion of the PRIMARYTOPIC definition should predominate over the long-term significance criterion. I argue that it should not, in this case, because the Virgin Mary is so extraordinarily academically and educationally significant. Given that both your argument and mine are reasonably based in policy (different "prongs" of the PRIMARYTOPIC test), the result of this RM is probably going to be determined by strength in numbers. Xoloz (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The greater enduring notability is the mother of Jesus. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. "Madonna" is basically Mary's posthumous nickname. She doesn't get full primary topic status here. I ditto that this was a malformed move request. Red Slash 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the page view counts are compelling. This is a text book case of why adding the historical importance criterion to PT was a big mistake - as it creates conflicting guidance as to what to do here. I say we go with the traditional definition of PT, and IAR the newer one. --В²C ☎ 06:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, your "good reason" for invoking IAR is that you've never liked the guideline, and still don't? Sounds like a textbook case of IDONTLIKEIT, which could easily result in your opinion being discounted. Xoloz (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've never heard of anyone in their right mind refer to Mary as Madonna. It's not notable in the article (not even present in the lead) and is most certainly not what people will type when looking to read on Mary. Derived from whatever, Madonna is Madonna. A hatnote and/or a disembag note is more than sufficient.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna&oldid=615722174"