Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Photo[edit]

I am sure that we can find a more flattering photograph than the main one at the top of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.147.134 (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure you can find a free image that does not violate copyright, then please give us a link and someone will add it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I found the following link and it appears to meet with Wikipedia policy (public domian, etc.) though I am no expert on that policy. http://amebasaladeriva.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/give_it_2_me_madonna.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.147.134 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that it is a "public domain" image? Simply being on a website does not mean that it is "public domain". If that was the case we could add almost any image we see anywhere. The current image in the infobox was uploaded by the person who took the photo. That makes it completely free. If it is replaced, it must be with an image that is not copyrighted or permission is given by copyright holder. If you are "sure that we can find a more flattering photograph", give us the evidence that the image is not copyrighted? And please read WP:NFC.
As a secondary note, the image you suggest is no better than the one already there. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually like it. Israell (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Little to no Criticism in Article[edit]

This article is overwhelmingly positive. Madonna, being one of the most successful and celebrated entertainers of the last 50 years, has also been one of the most criticized, parodied and mocked. Yet there is absolutely nil mention of this in the article. This seems incredibly biased to me. CouplandForever (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First, it is incorrect to say "absolutely nil mention" of criticism. There just isn't enough to satisfy you. Secondly, is there anything stopping you from trying to add some criticism? If you do, please keep in mind WP:5P, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RECENT, and WP:WEIGHT. Additionally, if you add criticisms, it generally is better to incorporate them into existing sections in the article rather than create a separate "Criticism" or "Controversies" section. Those sections tend to attract extremists, vandals, and trolls. Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Conversely I think that the "which caused media allegations they violated that country's adoption laws." in the intro (later in the article would be fine) seem a bit too critical and out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talkcontribs) 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder on wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons[edit]

Criticism and praise[edit]

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

True, true. However, there are some statements in the first section about her early career which have been called untrue by her brother, Christopher Ciccone, in his 2008 book about his experiences with her during that same period. Specifically, he said she did NOT arrive in New York with only $35 etc. He specifically said this was a myth perpetrated by her publicity machine and herself. This isn't malicious to include this highly reliable, citable information along side it. I would propose that someone with access to the article include a phrase to that end and cite the Ciccone book, Life With My Sister, Madonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.64.98 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Highly reliable? Don't think so. Would we use Latoya Jackson's book against Michael Jackson? No. When someone writes a book for the sole purpose of making money off of another person they are rarely reliable. — Realist2 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur that her excess stories are neither mentioned that well or got wiped. I remember one in particular that made headlines in the newspapers in her earlier life when she was married with Sean Penn. She got drunk/drugged and was running afterward naked on the streets. I couldn't find any mention of this in the articles about her or elsewhere in the net. Ebricca (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Like A Prayer[edit]

It would be better to write that the "Like A Prayer" album contained four Top 10 singles: "Like A Prayer", "Express Yourself", "Cherish", and "Keep It Together", instead of writing it contained three Top Five singles and just listing the first three. To get a Top 20 hit on the Hot 100 is an achievement for any artist due to all the competition out there, so a Top 10 hit (as "Keep It Together" was) should definetely be acknowledged. Most people are more familiar with the phrase Top 10 hit then Top Five hit anyway, so any artist or song that hits the Top 10 should be given its due. On a separate note, for any artist who has been recording over many years or decades, a Top 20 hit on the Hot 100 can be harder to attain, so it becomes a greater milestone. I do realize, however, that this album was released in just the sixth year of her career; this is simply an observation. Once again, mention Top 20's or even Top 10's, don't just stop at Top 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Top twenties would be a very bad idea, we are not here to mention every single Madonna released (the vast majority of her singles have done that). A top 20 hit is not important to the main biography of Madonna. Take a look at Michael Jackson, a song that didn't hit the top 10 in the US or UK doesn't get a mention. It would be too much otherwise. Madonna has released more singles and albums than Michael Jackson, it would be impossibly ugly. Top 10 on the Billboard is ok (so long as it's sourced), but none of those silly sub charts that you Americans seem to love. Only the Hot 100. — Realist2 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I love Americans, but they really have made a complete mess of the charting system. — Realist2 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to mention all of an artist's Top 40 hits, but I think Top 20's deserve a mention just because that's a relatively high position on the Hot 100, and you will hear Top Twenty songs frequently on the radio and see the song's music video often. Although artists like Madonna, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson, or Mariah Carey may have several songs from each album that have landed #1 - #20 (say 2-4 songs per album), most other musical acts do not and will not have musical careers that will extend about two decades, so they wouldn't have that many Top 20's to list anyway. Articles by the aformentioned artists will be longer just because their careers are longer, that goes hand in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's Warren?[edit]

Why no mention of Warren Beatty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.230 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

he was mentioned. someone deleted it but i put it back on and gave three sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Real182 (talkcontribs) 08:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the fact that she's got no pre-nup. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Adopted son[edit]

I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with the line in her personal life that says Madonna lives with her husband and "her two biological children and adopted son". What, so just because he's adopted, he can't be referred to as a normal member of her family? His adoption is something that is well established in the article, no one can miss it, so I think it just belittles him and his place in the family. And speaking of which, wouldn't it make more sense to incorporate the David Banda adoption section into her personal life, since he is a part of it as well? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We would have to check the edit history, but that line may have been inserted before the other details about the adoption were added. In any event, I tend to agree that it is not necessary in the sentence you describe because the adoption is thoroughly discussed earlier. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I hate to suggest listing children out of chronological order, but what about "As of 2008, Madonna resides... with Ritchie, their two sons, and her daughter." When we have a source for one of them moving, it can be changed to, "Madonna resides in [new town] with her three children." Ariadne55 (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since there was no objection, I changed it to the phrasing I'd suggested. Ariadne55 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well, look what I found http://www.accesshollywood.com/david-bandas-father-i-feel-let-down-by-madonna_article_11762 . If his statements ever become big news, here's the link. Talk about being ungrateful. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

She's Bisexual[edit]

She's a proud bisexual, and has portrayed her orientation in some of her work. Her bisexuality is a major part of her life and identity, she has never retracted/denounced it, and this article is one of the most important in Wikipedia's LGBT Studies. Why doesn't the relationships subsection mention any of her sexual relationships with women? Jenny Shimizu's page mentions the lesbian relationship between the two of them, so why isn't it referred to in this article? Werdnawerdna (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its mentioned (briefly) in the Legacy section. I agree it should be expanded upon, as there are numerous reliable sources on the subject. No one has bothered to do any serious work on it as of yet. See my additions to gay icon on Madonna: Gay_icon#1970s.E2.80.931980s. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


disambiguation[edit]

It would be nice to have a disambiguation thing at the top of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.220.200 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as?? I don't see a need for a "disambiguation thing". If someone enters "Madonna" in the search box and clicks "Go", it goes to a disambig page. You have to enter "Madonna (entertainer)" to get to Madonna's page. Why would there be any confusion? Ward3001 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I did a google search for Madonna, with this wikipedia entry as one of the top few. If I were directed to this page from somewhere off-site, and would then like to go to the disambiguation page, it would be nice. It is just as easy to search for the term "madonna" in the search bar, but having it there just seems useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.220.200 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarian?[edit]

Should she be added to Category:Humanitarians? I think that'd be fair considering, for example, what she's done for the gay community, to raise awareness of AIDS, and now with her work to help Malawi. 201.47.15.73 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable source that calls her a humanitarian then yes. However Michael Jackson is a high profile humanitarian and there would be stiff opposition to giving him the category. I support it myself if he can find a source that gives her such a title. — Realist2 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't www.raisingmalawi.org be enough? Not only did she co-found the organization, the announcement that she's building a school for girls in the country is right there in the front page. 201.47.15.73 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No sorry, we would need a third party source such as BBC, TIME, The New York Times etc calling her a Humanitarian. — Realist2 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Madonna's work in Africa: building schools and orphanages, by its very definition, makes her a humanitarian. Maddyfan (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be your opinion. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it's still an opinion. — Realist2 03:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Isn't "humanitarian" is usually just dubbed by the press for many celebrities who get involved in world issues, even when they're minor? As long as Madonna's work is cited, it shouldn't be an issue. Maddyfan (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
If the media throw the "humanitarian" word around like candy I'm sure we can easily find such a source for Madonna. — Realist2 04:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

She dated JFK's son.[edit]

On John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s page, it says the he dated Madonna for a little bit then broke up with her. Why doesn't it have anything about that in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Benjamin (talkcontribs) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One definite reason and another likely reason. It is unsourced on John F. Kennedy, Jr. and, therefore, should not be added here without a source. It also may not be notable enough for the Madonna article. The JFK Jr. page simply says "dated". It doesn't say for how long. Maybe they had one date. The Madonna article is lengthy as it is; it doesn't need to include a sentence about every person she's ever dated. Ward3001 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely we do not need a list of every person Madonna has ever taken out to dinner. - Sprogeeet (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Nulling the template as no edit-related request was made. §hep¡Talk to me! 21:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Madonna listed as #2 Hot 100 Artist of All Time[edit]

Madonna has been recognized by Billboard as the #2 All-time Top Artist on Billboard's Hot 100 Chart based on all charting titles (singles) from August 1958 through July 2008. She is second only to the Beatles. Bamart25 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Mike Alexander. Source: [1]

I strongly believe that this deserves a space in the intro!!! She is actually the "Top American Artist in the Hot 100 Chart of All-Time" and 2nd over-all behind the British band, The Beatles. Here's the link: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/specials/hot100/charts/top100-artists-20.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think it should go in the lead; perhaps later in the article. There is already a good summary of her achievements, awards, etc. in the last paragraph of the lead. Billboard's Hot 100 is not any more superior than the material already mentioned in the lead. It has some inherent biases, some of which were improved when they changed their methodology for rankings, but it's still far from perfect. And I think the fact that the rankings don't begin until August 1958 leaves out a substantial portion of Elvis Presley's most successful years. I'm not arguing that Elvis is a better artist than Madonna, just that the Billboard Hot 100 has some problems. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Leave it for the legacy section. The lead shouldn't be weighed down by too many specifics. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it sound go in the intro. That's a HUGE achievement, and one that places her in her iconic status. She is now the #1 female artist of all time. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No one is becomes "iconic" because of billboard. Madonna became a globally renowned icon by the mid-1980s. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"That's a HUGE achievement": Not any more huge than the other accomplishments already in the lead.
"She is now the #1 female artist of all time": If that is her status, it wasn't Billboard that placed her there. Ward3001 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is such a milestone in the history of Rock Era. For the past 50 years, it's not a big joke to be ranked #2 in the list of TOP ARTISTS OF HOT 100 OF ALL-TIME. So why should not this be in the intro?

Why not just remove the "2nd best selling female in the US" and replace it with this most recent achievement that I think requires much more merit instead?

Because being the second best-selling female artist in the united states is far more significant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL! And what made you think that way??? Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ever hear the term "one hit wonder"? A recording artist can have several number one/top ten/"top whatever" on the billboard charts and still have less than stellar album sales. The fact that she has sold at least 63 million albums within the united states alone is far more significant than how much airplay she gets. I'm not saying the accomplishment isn't important, but her greatest attributes have already been mentioned in the lead. Everything else can go in the legacy section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? So you think Mariah's 18 No 1s is more significant than Madonna being the Top Female Artist in the Billboard Hot 100 of All-Time? Which do you think is trivial? Ikabod08 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is so the case, then it goes to show that Madonna is not a "one hit wonder" so why still think it doesn't deserve to be in the intro?? 37 Top 10 singles since 1984, wow I think that IS stellar! Just as important as selling close to 64 million albums in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bookkeeper. — Realist2 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
And I don't agree with either of you! LOL! You think Mariah's 18 No. 1 singles is far more significant than that of Madonna being the Top Solo Artist in the History of Billboard Hot 100 Charts for the last 50 years???
In my true humble opinion Madonnas career in the US is irrelevant to the lead full stop. She's bigger than America and can survive without it. Not many artists can say that. — Realist2 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with whoever who had this brilliant idea. Madonna is an American artist and Billboard is regarded as the bible of the U.S. music industry for the past 50 years and it will sure take another 25 years or 50 years from now for Billboard to make another special issue as this so IMHO this recent Billboard achivement deserves a space in the introduction. Thanks! Ikabod08 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"Billboard is regarded as the bible of the U.S. music industry: Not true. There are other, more meaningful indices of success as a musician. Ward3001 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of this stuff like her 37 songs, blah blah, etc etc can go in the legacy section. — Realist2 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The LEAD is meant to be a broad introduction to the reader about the person's overall notability. "Greatest pop act of all time/best-selling female rock artist/and "world's most successful female entertainer" pretty much says it all. everything else can be explained in the rest of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup I agree with you, but this being the Top Solo Singles Artist (2nd over-all) of All-Time certainly has to be in the intro...Ikabod08 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Realist and Bookkeeper one and the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering I live in southern California and Realist2 lives in Europe, no. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Although we are both very HOT if that's anything? — Realist2 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe sockpuppets, if that's really anything... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist and Bookkeeper - sockpuppets? Ha ha! That has got to be the best thing I've heard all day. J.delanoygabsadds 23:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, how did this get so off topic, I need a pint. — Realist2 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

24.225.92.93, let me suggest that you stop slinging around unfounded accusations simply because a number of opinions here disagree with yours. Trying to bully your way through this discussion will get you nowhere, and the more you do it, the more the rest of us realize that you have an agenda other than doing what is best for the article. You've made your point, so leave it at that. Ward3001 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Madonna can be viewed as being exceptionally hypocritical: her stand against against modern television and its pernicious influence upon children is vacuous and self-righteous. Consider, if you will, her statements in this regard in the light of the (mis)use she made of that medium in order to obtain her success.

How can she be regarded as artist (even second-best)? Lip-synching is not often referred to as a n artform —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.95.132 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind backing up the accusation that she lip-syncs more than any other singer with a reliable source? Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Madonna and Guy have been granted divorce early by judge[edit]

Her surname should now be changed. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Names don't dissolve instantly always. — Realist2 01:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a copy of the divorce documents

[1] [2] [3]

It's over. Her last name wasn't a big part of her life anyway. I think it's more than time to remove the surname. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maddyfan, making the same useless argument from an anonymous IP isn't any more convincing than doing it when you're logged in. Give us a citation that her name has changed. Ward3001 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks will not be permitted, and will get you a suspension. Don't go there. Maddyfan (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me how pointing out your sockpuppetry is a "personal attack". Telling someone they "obviously have mental problems", as you did here is a textbook case of a personal attack. You really like to write your own rules don't you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Surname, Again[edit]

Hate to say it so soon after consensus was finally achieved on her name, but what now? "Ritchie" has already been removed from the lead sentence once, and I'm sure it will be again. However, are we sure she's resuming her old last name? Madonna and Ritchie have two kids with the surname Ritchie, so it seems a toss-up whether she'll change it back. Also, a separation isn't a divorce, there's been no legal change yet. A few months ago, Robin Wright Penn and Sean Penn announced that they were divorcing and then changed their minds. I don't think the lead should be changed until the divorce is final and we have a source for the reversion. What does everyone else think? Ariadne55 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Until there is a legal change in name everything stays as it is. — Realist2 17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
How on Earth are you ever going to find that out??? Maddyfan (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
By having a bit of patience and waiting to see what happens, that's how. Ward3001 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol, well said. We are not a vehicle for breaking news. We are allowed to take our time and wait patiently. — Realist2 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's now being reported at every major media outlet that they've settled. Guy has gotten paid, and they're done. The surname has to go. No way she is keeping it. They won't be going to court. He got his settlement. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would advise we adjust the lead sentence to read: Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone on August 16, 1958) which is consistant with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names and it avoids her numerous name changes altogether. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Bisco (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A format that seems to work well on some pages is: Madonna (née Madonna Louise Ciccone, formerly Ritchie, born August 16, 1958). However, I still think we should wait for a reliable source before changing it. Ariadne55 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
No, then we'd have to add Penn too. Nee is usually used for women who have taken on another surname. "Madonna" is not a surname. She did not ditch, Madonna Loise Ciccone. She's not a former anything. "Formerly" is usually used when someone gets married. The Ritchie, nor Penn, surname isn't locked in with her now somehow. When she's divorced, it's gone. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides the ex-husbands names, where is the Veronica in Madonna's name? Johnnyboytoy (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but why it was chosen to be ommitted in the main article? Specially when Veronica was the name chosen by Madonna on her confirmation. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Madonna's Musical Styles[edit]

Madonna has been known as a dance pop singer incorporating genres like techno, electronica, ambient, trip hop, trance, disco, and dance. On many of her album she incorporates these dance genres like Madonna (Madonna album), Like a Virgin, True Blue (album), Like a Prayer, Erotica (album), Ray of Light, Music, American Life, and Confessions on a Dance Floor and on many compilations and live albums. She uses a more dance-pop-electropop forward approach on Hard Candy (Madonna album). so she is a techno, electronica, ambient, trip hop, trance, disco, and dance artist, or Mainstream dance, so answer yes or no for this Should this singers article have her as a dance pop artist?.--Electroide (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

take a look at the massive "Genre" discussion at the top of the page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. An infobox can never have an exhaustive list of genres. Only the most generic one or two should be included. Ward3001 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Generic? Why would pop and rock be more suitable for the infobox's genres. She has always sang dance influenced songs, which is very noticealbe by many in the discussion above. Many music downloading websites credit her as a pop, dance, electronica, and dance-pop singer. Here's a list.

  • Amazon albums: Madonna Bio[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QJP7VW/ref=dm_dp_adp]
    *hard candy[http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Candy/dp/B0018CAAN6/ref=pd_rhf_f_i_cs_2]
    *like a virgin[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00122HUN0/ref=dm_ap_alb8]
    *like a prayer[http://www.amazon.com/Like-A-Prayer/dp/B00123JRDK/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_3]
    *ray of light [http://www.amazon.com/Ray-Of-Light/dp/B00122A28A/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_3]
    *music[http://www.amazon.com/Music/dp/B00122BEYG/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_1]
    *american life[http://www.amazon.com/American-Life/dp/B00122J3QC/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_4]
    *confessions of a dancefloor[http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-On-A-Dance- Floor/dp/B0011Z0YFE/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_3]
    *madonna[http://www.amazon.com/Madonna-Bonus-Tracks/dp/B00122FYMO/ref=pd_sim_dmusic_1]
  • Rhapsody: Madonna Bio[4]
  • Allmusic Overview[5]
  • AOL Music: Madonna's Albums [6]

So she is a very noticeably a pop-dance singer.--Slaughterman (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Dance &Electronic is a genre, not a style like it is stated above.--Slaughterman (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes! Madonna is a very notable in the genres of pop, dance, electronica, and dance-pop--71.172.208.45 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Update legacy section?[edit]

According to the 2007-present section, her knew tour have outperformed the confessions tour. The legacy section might need updating. — Realist2 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth Name![edit]

She was not born 'Madonna' she was born Louise Ciccone... its in one of her unofficial biographies. Wneedham02 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at one of dozens (perhaps hundreds) of bios on Madonna. She was born Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone. Here's a couple for starters: [7]; [8]. Ward3001 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Veronica is not part of her birth name. But since there's no mention in the intro paragraph about this any longer, and the infobox only says "aka" but gives no information why, could there be a little sentence with a source included in the beginnings section? Bisco (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is starting to look cluttered[edit]

With all the images and audio clips the article is looking rather cluttered. I'm quite sure there are some MOS breaches as well. I really think we need to stop adding recent images. We have several images of Madonna touring in recent years, we don't need more. Thoughts? — Realist2 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Her movies[edit]

why is it that this article is cluttered with quotes about her accomplishments, but does not mention that she received the razzie for WORST ACTRESS OF THE CENTURY?? that is important and the sources are 100% reliable. (imdb, rottentomatoes, boxofficemojo) they are all legitimate sources! there needs to be a mention that she is one of the worst actresses in film history. and out of her 22 movies, there are only 3 she did that were not flops. its the truth. wiki editors won't allow me to post this information when it is very necessary to the article.4Real182 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just that it's not appropriate to the lead, although I agree, the positive aspects of her film career also need toning down in the lead. Her film career isn't that important an aspect of her career. — Realist2 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've toned down the praise. — Realist2 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE Madonna's net worth needs to be updated[edit]

Bold text [edit]


January/20/2009

Madonna Net Worth


Madonna is the wealthiest 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[citation needed]. Her wealth is closer to $850m USD than the reported $665m[citation needed]. Reports about her wealth vary from programme to programme, but once all is considered, including personal wealth, real estate, and her Maverick studios earnings, Madonna just may be a billionaire herself... if not today, then very shortly in time. In 2004 alone, she earned more than $50 million with her Reinvention Tour. Rolling Stone reported that she was worth more than $613 million dollars back in 00[citation needed], and that was before her Drowned World Tour, Reinvention Tour, and The Confessions Tour. Some reports get their figures about $613 million. "On ABC’s 'Life Of Luxury' which aired on Dec. 13th 00 Madonna was named the richest female artist with an estimated fortune of $613,000,000.

The new "Guinness Book of Records" names U.S. pop star Madonna as the highest paid female entertainer in the world. Madonna reportedly earned about $50 million in 2004 alone, which became a new record for a female singer. [8]

Side businesses and endorsements are another lucrative source of great income for Madonna, and with the star power, and magnitude of an artist of Madonna's caliber its worth to pay millions when you are being advertised by one of the best billboards in the world. Everyone knows that Madonna is the queen of endosement deals. Don't forget to count that along with her MadGuy Films, Boy Toy inc, Webo Girl, Siren Films, Slutco inc, and Maverick films.

Maverick Records is the most successful "vanity label" in music history. While under Madonna's control it generated well over $1 billion 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.

October 17, 2007 Madonna and concert promoter Live Nation Inc. announced a huge mega deal that encompasses future music and music-related businesses, including the Madonna brand, albums, touring, merchandising, fan club and Web site, DVDs, music-related television and film projects, and associated sponsorship agreements, the statement said. The deal is worth $120 million over 10 years with Madonna also being a shareholder in the company.

Wed December 22, 2000

Forbes: Madonna richest woman in music

Madonna is the richest woman in music. The 50-year-old entertainer leads Forbes.com's list of the top 20 "Cash Queens of Music," earning $72 million between June 2006 and June 2007.

The pop star's "Confessions" world tour pulled in $260 million, Forbes said. She also made money from album sales, her fashion line with H&M and a deal with NBC to broadcast her concert performance at London's Wembley Stadium.

Forbes.com said it compiled the list by examining concert grosses, merchandising revenue, album sales and other revenue from clothing lines, fragrance deals and endorsements.

Madonna breaks her own record in 2008 with her Sticky & Sweet Tour becoming the #1 Grossing Tour In History For Solo Artist. Madonna also tops the Los Angeles Times’ Ultimate Top 10, an annual survey combining sales of concert tickets, albums and digital downloads to measure which acts were most popular with the broadest swath of music lovers.


1. Madonna ($120 million). The Material Girl took in $105.3 million from touring, in addition to $14.8 million from music sales. It’s hard to decide what’s more impressive. The average gross at her shows, mostly in stadiums, was $5.5 million, and she drew about 36,000 people per show. Additionally, the average ticket price was $153.88, easily the highest among Pollstar’s Top 50 grossing tours. Worldwide, according to Pollstar, she amassed $281.6 million.

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madonnadevotedfan (talkcontribs) 08:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Madonna Wikiproject preposal[edit]

I would like to set up a Wikiproject for Madonna, very much like those for Michael and Janet Jackson (see WP:MJJ and WP:JANET). I would like to set it up in the Christmas holidays. Before that I need to know if there is enough support for it to go ahead, I need to know if there is enough interest. A project is a brilliant way to monitor, maintain and improve articles relating to Madonna. It also allows fellow Madonna fans to interact with one another and exchange sources. If you are interested in taking part please add your name below. If you know others who would be interested direct them to this discussion. The list will stay open until December 15. — Realist2 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was surprisingly low feedback on this, I can only assume not many people watchlist this article or something. 9 weeks and only 4 people are interested :-( — R2 12:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But still, lets start it. This will be a good project to undertake. "Legolas" (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interest list[edit]

  1. Realist2 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. As I stated on my talk page, I think a Madonna Wikiproject would be a good idea. There are many articles that are related to her and her career, and a Wikiproject would be a big help. Acalamari 17:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. I know it's late but anyway, a Project would be great. It could manage everything that is to do on all the related pages and organize it so that not all editors concentrate only on the main article. Bisco (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. - "Legolas" (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Totally into it.

Madonna Louise Ciccone[edit]

Now that the Madonna is a divorced, can we update the article to omit "Ritchie" from a her name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.179.238 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not until we find a source with the name change. — R2 07:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live[edit]

On November 9, 1985, Madonna hosted Saturday Night Live and appeared in a number of comedy sketches. This could be added to the paragraph that explains how she became more involved in film in 1985, for it actually states that in the article. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live_(Season_11) See the first episode's host. I also have the episode on DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.199.185 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain this more clearly. "It actually states that in the article": What article??? And how does SNL have anything to do with "how she became more involved in film in 1985"??? And do you have a reliable source for any of this besides Wikipedia, because Wikipedia can't source itself? Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, it could at least be put in her Filmography. I've seen other celebrities' profiles where Saturday Night Live hosting is mentioned, and for Madonna fans who read this article, this may be surprising to them and cause them to want to see the episode. For more proof, here are some sources and videos showing her performances on the show. A Skit From The Episode, The Answers.Com Episode Guide, The IMDB Site For The Episode --Ectite (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Ritchie surname[edit]

Why do we have to wait until we get a source? Its going to be near enough impossible as Madonna is only ever refered to as "Madonna" in articles. I am 100% sure Madonna will not be retaining the Ritchie name now that they are divorced, she also went back to Madonna Ciccone after her divorce from Sean Penn. Can we have it changed to Madonna Louise Ciccone as that has been her name for most of her life. Its going to be quite ridiculous if in six months she is still referred to with her ex-husband's name. Thanks JWAD talk 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Why do we have to wait until we get a source?: Because it's policy. Let me restate that in case you're having a problem getting it: It's policy.
  • I am 100% sure Madonna will not be retaining the Ritchie name now that they are divorced: Amazing! Not only can you read Madonna's mind, you can predict her future. How did Wikipedia ever do without you?!?
  • Can we have it changed to Madonna Louise Ciccone: Of course; if that's how she changes it in the future and someone can find a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Your attention is drawn to WP:Civility. Please do not make comments like you did here. I was only trying to show some references to the argument for removal of the surname of which I am entitled to make. Comments like "Amazing! Not only can you read Madonna's mind, you can predict her future. How did Wikipedia ever do without you?!?" are immature and uncivil. I am only trying to give my opinion. Please keep those comments to yourself as there is enough incivility here on Wikipedia. If its not constructive or helpful. Any future comments like this will be reported to admin. Thanks JWAD talk 16:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is some references for her name to be changed: they are current songs from Hard Candy listed at ASCAP which detail her name as Madonna L Ciccone not Ritchie. "4 Minutes" "Beat Goes On" "Give It 2 Me" JWAD talk 15:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Songwriting credits almost always remain the same regardless of the name changes from marriage or divorce. I think if you look at all of her songwriting credits during the time she was married to Ritchie or Penn, it will be the same. These are not definitive sources. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a reference from Gwyneth Paltrow from Marie Claire magazine referring to the newly divorced star "Madonna Ciccone rules the world, is a loyal friend and a terrific mother" [9] Is this a good enough reference? JWAD talk 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. An offhand remark by a friend of Madonna doesn't exactly fall into the reliable source category. Much better would be a statement by Madonna or a court document. Ward3001 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A statement from Madonna is an extremely rare thing, Liz Rosenberg (her publicist) usually issues them. The chance of getting a court document is going to be virtually nil. I will endeavour to search for a suitable reference. JWAD talk 16:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A statement from her official publicist is equivalent to a statement from Madonna. And the fact that a source is hard to find does not negate the requirement for a reliable source. BTW, court documents are frequently used as sources on Wikipedia. In fact, I think the divorce decree for Madonna and Ritchie has been used. Ward3001 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
here are links to provided support for removal of Ritchie name: the first shows a legal court paper for Madonna's petition for divorce and states her name as Madonna Louise Ciccone, the other articles state the divorce proceedings as Ciccone ML vs Ritchie GS. [10] [11][12] [13] I think this is enough evidence. JWAD talk 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to belabor this point, but I'm not a legal scholar, so I think we should wait for some other opinions. I've seen a number of divorce decrees that used the woman's maiden name in the document even though she retained her married name. But as I said, I'm not a legal expert, and I assume you aren't either. I think we should give this a few days (maybe less if others weigh in right away) and see what others have to say, then decide. I don't think the world will fall apart if her name stays as it is in the article a while longer. Ward3001 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My own personal opinion, as stated in earlier sections is that I would advise we adjust the lead sentence to read: Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone on August 16, 1958) which is consistant with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names and it avoids her numerous name changes altogether. This way her current last name in only listed in the infobox, among her other aliases. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Occam's razor applies. It's a simple solution that avoids the problems but does not reduce the amount of information. Ward3001 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with The Bookkeeper, it should just read Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone on August 16, 1958) her former husband's surname should only be in the "also known as" JWAD talk 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. — R2 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

'What Madonna Is' Needs To Be Fixed[edit]

I see other articles on other celebrities where the introduction states much more than Madonna. On her article, she is stated as a Recording Artist and Entertainer. Paris Hilton, on the other hand, and I quote from the article:

Paris Whitney Hilton (born February 17, 1981) is an American celebutante, socialite, heiress, television personality, businesswoman, actress, author, singer and model.

So, either Paris's needs to be toned down, or Madonna needs to be given credit on her opening sentence for: Actress, Businesswoman, Singer, Model, Dancer, Author, Songwriter, etc. I also stumbled upon Britney Spears' article, which stated that she was a 'Grammy Award Winning Singer/Songwriter.' I think this would be more fitting for Madonna than 'Recording Artist.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ectite (talkcontribs) 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Paris' article needs to be toned down, as does Britney's. The first sentence of the lead does not need to be an entire paragraph in itself, its a brief introduction to the reader. Listing awards in the first sentence is unneeded WP:FANCRUFT. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alleged Bisexuality[edit]

May I transparently pre-empt my apologist for being a newbie, but as a hardcore yet BALANCED Madonna obsessive (yes, an oxymoron etc.. everyone contradicts themselves, least of all her with her myriad masquerades). That this discussion be re-opened.

She did ONCE admit to having slept with women - i.e experimented - and has featured bisesuality throughout her work, but I think otherwise it could perhaps be a little obvious what her main preference is.

I have solid sources for all this to back it up.

Summary - she has never admitted publicly to being bisexual, she only dabbled. That's her (first-hand) evidence. What actual solid proof is there? And experts - where does The Kinsey Scale/fluid sexuality come into this?

Admittedly, the closest she came was saying something like "we are all born bisexual" (fluid sexuality/Kinsey scale - have you watched her homophobic ex in Milk?. That's the only substanstive claim I can see. I just feel this side of the article and "proud bisexual" is not neutral enough. Btw, hello and sorry for the essay (did you see what I did there ;))

Brevity is the soul of wit 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preying Mantus (talkcontribs)

Let's see you "solid sources". Ward3001 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Madonna - entertainer?[edit]

I was wondering what the consensus was on this Madonna page as it being titled Madonna (entertainer)? I think this resembles more a description of someone in a circus or enterains kids at birthday parties, IMO it does not sound right. She mentions in an interview with Larry King here [14] that she sees herself as a "performance artist". Would it not be a better idea to rename it "Madonna (performer)" or "Madonna (performance artist)"? I was wondering what everyone thinks? JWAD talk 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "entertainer" is standard among celebrities who hold a number of different occupations (actress/singer/etc). Ex: Chris Brown (entertainer), among others. Its simple enough as is. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Prince (musician), I pass no comment. — R2 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There might be some inconsistency in Wikipedia articles, but I think "Entertainer" is better than "Performing artist". I think any real difference in perception (circus, birthday parties, magician, etc.) between the two terms is very much an individual matter. For example, my personal perception is that "performing artist" sounds more like a circus performer than entertainer, but that's just my perception. My point is, this will be different for every person, so I don't think we need to change specific articles simply because one term "sounds" better to one person. It would be helpful if Wikipedia were more consistent, but even that is problematic because there are differences (sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle) between entertainers. For now, however, my opinion is leave it as "Entertainer". Ward3001 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks I understand now why its used. JWAD talk 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick question in relation to the above. Could her page be just known as Madonna, with the Madonna page changed to Madonna (disambiguation) instead? There could also be a sub-heading link to that page. I know there is some controversy surrounding this as some would say Mary (mother of Jesus) is the original Madonna but the main page for that person is not know as "Madonna" it is "Mary". JWAD talk 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That was discussed long ago and is in one of the archives. Overwhelming consensus was a resounding NO. Madonna (Mary Mother of God) and other uses take precedent over the entertainer, as they have historical significance, while someone born merely 50 years ago, does not (in comparison to the origin of the term). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
"Madonna (Entertainer)" seems like the best description. But who would search Wikipedia for this title? I prefer to be instantly taken to the page I want when I search Wikipedia rather than more pages in between so maybe "Madonna (musician)" would be more appropriate even though it isn't the most accurate. As for redirecting straight to "Madonna" like Jwad suggests, that's crazy. The term 'Madonna' is used in everyday English to refer to Mary, mother of Jesus. Even somebody like myself who refers to the Bible as a fairy tale can see that Mary, mother of Jesus should take precedent above Madonna (entertainer). Or do you suggest we refer to Mary, mother of Jesus as "Madonna (fictional character)" instead?--217.203.153.152 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Madonna 1983-1989[edit]

I came across this article today while looking up greatest hits of Madonna. When I googled it, the first result said "Madonna 1983-1989", which was an article on Wikipedia. This is a limited edition greatest hits compilation released only in Japan. Is this worth mentioning at all in the article? And if so, should there also be expansion of the Madonna 1983-1989 article? El cangri386 Sign! or Talk 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD would probably be for the best. — R2 13:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Derek Jeter[edit]

Anyone have information about her Derek Jeter, which is speculated to have lead to her divorce with Guy Richie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.8.152 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. She was speculated to have been with Alex Rodriguez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.151.26 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Her Birth Name is Maria Louise Ciccone- not Madonna[edit]

Madonnalynn (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We know, Madonna was chosen per a thread higher up. — R2 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No, her birth name is, Madonna. "Maria" was made up by the Italian press. Madonna's mother's name is also Madonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.161.238 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this necessary?[edit]

"In late 1990, Madonna dated Tony Ward,[187] a bisexual model and porn star who starred in her music videos for "Cherish" (1989) and "Justify My Love" (1990). "

Why is it necessary to say that Tony Ward is bisexual? So what? Any mention about his sexuality should appear in his article and not Madonna's.--217.203.153.152 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I removed it. — R2 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

American Roman Catholics[edit]

If she follows Kabbalah she shouldn't be listed as Roman Catholic but Jewish. 86.29.230.97 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

An interest in Kabbalah doesn't mean she has converted to Judaism. The article can't identify her as Jewish without a source indicating that she has officially converted. Ward3001 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find Kabbalah is a Jewish religion, I converted myself 20 years ago and would hate to be "labeled" as anything else. Madonna is more than interested in Kabbalah - it's her chosen faith. Many thanks 86.29.238.180 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you did. The article is about Madonna. And there is no source cited that states she converted to anything. Studying something is not equivalent to converting. Please read WP:V; we can't put something in the article without a reliable source that confirms it. And read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; we can't put something in an article just because it's your opinion. This is not a blog or your personal webpage; it's an encyclopedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, my post was made in good faith; I was trying to be friendly. There was no need to be so rude, I only asked a question. 86.29.238.216 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I was stating facts, not being rude. And after the necessity for proper sourcing has already been explained once, you're pushing the matter by continuing to question why it can't be added. Did you bother to read the links to Wikipedia policies? Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tours[edit]

It should mention that she appeared in Long Island on March 12, 2009 to perfrom with Britney Spears in her The Circus Starring: Britney Spears tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really not important, much better in the article dedicated to the tour. Best. — R2 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Singer Versus Recording Artist[edit]

I looked into Wikipedia's definitions of singer and recording artist and Madonna definitely fits into the singer category even moreso than the recording artist category since she actually vocalizes (not just record music).

Technically speaking, just like Geri Halliwell, Kelly Osbourne, Ashlee Simpson and all the others most-hated vocalists, Madonna is a singer.

Madonna co-wrote most of her songs and wrote most of her lyrics. Singer-songwriter is definitely more appropriate than just recording artist for the intro of the article.

Just because many only see her as some marketing doll, negate her vocal talent and dismiss the fact she co-wrote most of her songs (and wrote most of her lyrics) doesn't mean the article should reflect that.

I know I'm gonna be called a fan that only wants to glamorize her but everything I just wrote is true. Singer-songwriter is more appropriate and justified. Insisting on negating that is what's fanatical in my book... Singer-songwriter is more just, true and broad. Recording artist is very much restrictive. Israell (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not have to contain everything about her. More details are given in the infobox and in the remainder of the article. I wouldn't have a problem with "singer" instead of "recording artist", but I think she is known more for the songs she recorded, her live peformances, and her acting. I realize she has written some of her music, but I don't believe that's her greatest claim to fame. And I really don't think the article reflects her to be a "marketing doll" at the expense of her true talents. In fact, her ability to market herself and repeatedly re-invent herself is one reason for her longevity in a business that is quick to dismiss someone after a short time in the spotlight. Ward3001 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I kinda spearheaded the use of "recording artist" in most article because its a broad term, and much more encompassing that "singer" or "singer-songwriter". Most superstars like Madonna sing, song write, and produce, amongst other talents, but shoving all that info into the lead sentence makes it look cluttered (hence a broad label like recording artist). The infobox specifies all she does, so its not as if we're ignoring all her vocations. Secondly, singer-songwriter typically indicates someone who writes, composes and sings all or most of their own material (like imogen heap). Madonna has always had someone co-write/compose her songs, in which case she is referred to as a singer and songwriter as opposed to the more specific singer-songwriter. Featured articles such as Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson and Gwen Stefani currently use the term "recording artist" with "singer/songwriter" in the occupation section of the infobox. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Madonna's documentary about Malawi - I Am Because We Are[edit]

In 2008, Madonna's documentary about children in Malawi was released. It is entitled I Am Because We Are and was produced by Angela Becker and directed by Nathan Rissman. The production company was Debutante, Inc.

Official Description: In Malawi, a country of 12 million people, so many children without parents has caused irreparable damage. This film attempts to explore what is going on in the heads and hearts of these orphans, and what the future holds for them. Follow real-life stories of children and the parents who have died, and explore all sides of the dilemma, from the responsibility to the victim mentality. Narrated by Madonna with interviews with Bill Clinton and Desmond Tutu.

The full-length documentary can be watched online for free at hulu: http://www.hulu.com/i-am-because-we-are.

Ivkaadam (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

New adoption[edit]

Will the latest on Madonna adopting a little girl from Malawi be added? It's too easy for me to do it. It was on NBC and the AP wire, not just the tabloids. FotoPhest (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Best let things play out, and see what, if anything, actually happens. — R2 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, she lost the bid to adopt the little girl. So it's probably okay to go in now. It's a good enough source. Sky83 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree it can go in, though I am supprised there is nothing in the article as of now, it is highly unusual. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's good that editors have shown restraint for once. We are an encyclopedia after all, not a news agency. It only needs one sentence. "In March 2009, Madonna applied to adopt a second child from Malawi, the application was declined by a national Judge". — R2 15:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Hi everybody. As we all know this article was a former featured article but was demoted due to various reasons. I hereby ask of willing editors to reflect upon what can be done to improve and shorten this article and bring it up to FA again. The page is 97KB long, thats more than double of whats allowable and it is extremely cluttered with images and samples and junks. So please leave your suggestions. --Legolas (talktome) 09:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not too long, the 97 KB figure includes referencing. You only need to worry about readable prose. The article can and should be expanded further. References need better formatting and the prose need cleaning up. — R2 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So you suggesting that after cleanup of the prose and maybe a peer review, we can nominate the article again for FAC? --Legolas (talktome) 10:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And check the references, make sure they are all reliable, working and formatted correctly. Then a peer review, then FAC. — R2 11:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll do my best. --Legolas (talktome) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with references, so I can do some of that too, replacing bad sources with fact tags etc and formatting. — R2 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

children's book author[edit]

Madonna is an author of a successful illustrated [http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1238780158/ref=sr_nr_n_6?ie=UTF8&rs=1000&keywords=madonna&bbn=1000&rnid=1000&rh=n%3A%211000%2Ci%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Amadonna%2Cn%3A4| children's book series] (amazon link) that shares the values of kabbalah with children, and whose profits go to the Children's Kabbalah Centre. This is a significant part of her life that has not been included in the article.

DragonNoodleDelivery (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pope advises Catholics, not Italians[edit]

Several references to the Pope "advising Italians" of anything are inaccurate: The Pope does not advise Italians to do or not do anything: The Pope advises _Catholics_ as to whether they should see a show or whatnot. At least one cited reference states this though for some reason it was changed to Italians. In fact, the Pope at the time was not even Italian, he was Polish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radzewicz (talkcontribs)

I wonder if you could tell us exactly which part of the article discusses the Pope advising Italians. I don't seem to be able to find it. Ward3001 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, it was in two places and I made the change to Catholics, I should have then gone back and said so. Radzewicz (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

POP star Madonna fell off her horse[edit]

start new topic please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radzewicz (talkcontribs) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

POP star Madonna fell off her horse while horseback riding in the Hamptons this afternoon and was taken to a local hospital - her second fall in recent years.

The Material gir's injuries were not considered serious, TMZ reports, but she was taken to the hospital for precautionary reasons.

Madonna was at the home of photographer Steven Klein at the time, according to the paper. She was reportedly wearing full riding gear, including a helmet, when she fell.

Gallery: The Material Girl, super mum and pop star.

Back in 2005, Madonna fell while riding in London on her birthday - she suffered several broken bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craler78 (talkcontribs) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not notable unless the injury is serious. — R2 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, rectify[edit]

The name of the new Madonna's affair is not JESÚS LUZ, but JESUS LUZ whithout any acute accent.

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/jesus-luz-is-new-madonna-boyfriend/

The name is of Portuguese origin, not Spanish, and in Portuguese, the word "Jesus" does not have an accent mark... I know this because I'm half Brazilian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.174.35 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pacentro Statue[edit]

"In 1988, city officials in the town of Pacentro began to construct a 13-foot (4 m) statue of Madonna in a bustier.[44] The statue commemorates the fact that her ancestors had lived in Pacentro.[45]"

This statement is inaccurate. It should say that in 1988, the city officials discussed erecting a statue of Madonna in the town. Opposition from the Vatican, local priest and other townspeople defeated this proposal. I am aware that certain biographies and books state that the statue was built, however, this is not true. I have personally been to this town many times and no such statue exists. The local newspaper "Un Mese in Pacentro" Ottobre 1988 issue, discusses at length how the statue proposal was defeated because it would "corrupt the morals of the youth of Pacentro". I recommend this be corrected immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.105 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please give us a reliable source for that? Ward3001 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Leon[edit]

Carlos Leon was indeed a personal trainer when he and Madonna met, but he was never HER personal trainer. 76.107.206.120 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Give us a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Billboard.com