Talk:Madonna/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

In Popular Culture

A section should be added for Madonna's many references in pop culture. She was referenced 5 times on Family Guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko20tkjbsMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEEKcJot9-A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7IMYl5oU8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDQJhsIToXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlhI-Idfilk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL74171BB56B7DE111

Her song "Take A Bow" was played on the final episode of the first season of Friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWtLE1HxaB4

There was an entire episode dedicated to her on GLEE and America's Best Dance Crew. The South Korean band Secret named a song after her. A movie was named after her song Material Girl.

Her song Ray of Light was featured in the film Burlesque

She was parodied on an episode of Mad earlier this year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEynOU59VZQ

She was parodied multiple times on MadTV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ZwAACAGro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvlqm-wom-E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-uuXsUX1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxHRaij-BY

There are literally millions of videos parodying her, admiring and paying homage to her Here are just a few as i cannot literally post them all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8dwYvDDBGI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z13U4XRVwno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjye0JZIuIQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc3B0bc2qEY&feature=related

Her songs have been covered by many artists such as Mad House and very popular artists such as Rihanna, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera

She was parodied in Eminem's "Just Lose It" video.

She was referenced in a song by Meek Mills called "A1 everything"

Lady Gaga wore many of Madonna's cone bras and bustiers, one of which she put fireworks in the breasts

She was referenced for the first 10 minutes of the popular film Reservoir Dogs

as well as many many more references to Madonna over the years (98.181.62.167 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Very low quality material, should not be added to the article. Of course Madonna is name-checked in many places, but that sort of trivial mention is, well, trivial. Only the most important instances should be in the Wikipedia biography. We are not here to document each and every time someone says "Madonna" meaning the pop singer. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.62.167 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


The argument that she won't get this title until after she dies is completely ignorant. Michael and Elvis were called Kings for a large portion of their career. Try again. This time with some basic knowledge of your subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 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)

They did the same thing with Lady Gaga but if I remember that poll correctly, it only accounted for newer artists within the past 5 years. This poll was done the very week after if i can remember and it placed Gaga second to Madonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.62.167 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article that cited Gaga, was only counting people from the passed few years if I remember correctly. And after they did that they received so much hate mail they had to redo it with Madonna as an option, and she won in a land slide. While it's true that you can find some minor, scattered articles, written by no-name reviewers, calling other people the Queen, NO ONE has held the title so many times and so consistently for so long. The fact that this comment comes us so many times, and Wikipedia refuses to do something, shows that a bias is being held against her. They've been told time and time again to include this, and are ignoring the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Madonna infobox

Hey i got these pics from Madonnaundeground. I think one of them is good for Madonna's infobox pic what do you think?? all we need to do is wait for the otrs mail

  1. MDNA Infobox
  2. Revolver
  3. Vogue

--189.241.160.65 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the Vogue picture is the picture that should be used. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

Why wasnt a consensus ruled on this? I also vote for the Vogue picture (SuperCell3000 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

We'd need to brightn it up and maybe even crop it a lil bit, but yeah i agree on da vogue one.--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just too bad that the uploader has only given 20kb low resolution photos that are barely suitable for a thumbnail (and useless for re-use by outside parties, which is always a consideration since we aim to be a resource of media). I would imagine we can find better, higher resolution, genuinely CC photo from the tour on Flickr than any of the ones this uploader gave us. Has anyone looked? --David Shankbone 03:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked and i found a few

http://www.flickr.com/photos/colakioficial/7314888898/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/colakioficial/7314888190/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/promusicsrl/7441837420/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/promusicsrl/7406774884/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/promusicsrl/7424808398/

I feel that they all are very good and even if only one can be used i think that we should at least use the others on other pages where they are relevant. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

They all look good but i think it should be out of the 3rd, 4th and 5th ones. The 4th is very classic Madonna. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Get that user to change the licenses so we can use dem pictures, otherwise we cant--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you get the user to change licenses? Just ask? (SuperCell3000 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

I Own know. contact the users on flickr--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I know but what do we ask them? Because if we say can you change the license im pretty sure theyre going to ask how to do that and what to change the license to. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

I own know bout dat either. try talking to Jorn or Bluesatellite cause I own know much bout dat.--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wth does "i own know" mean? (SuperCell3000 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

"I Own Know" = "I Don't Know" is slang--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all half of those photos have big copyright tags on them which probably indicates that the up-loader doesn't want their work to be used without some type of commercial feedback. If you want to contact the uploader about changing licences, just politely and professionally let them know that you would like to use it Madonna's Wikipedia page. Secondly, its not whether the image is recent or not its if it a clear, high quality shot of her face. And as mentioned aboce please make sure it isn't an obvious copyright violation. Keep looking guys I agree she needs a new pic and I'll look too :)! teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 02:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the most current? This contradicts what the editor above told us in the Photo section when he said "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)." (SuperCell3000 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Well never mind that then that's just what I was told by other editors. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 04:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS permission has been verified, we can use the oictrues now.--189.241.138.252 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. What y'all think?--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it should be changed to the Vogue picture. Its much more flattering, it has no guns in the picture and in the current picture used she is very tired, sweaty and worn out so i think that it would be much better to use a picture of Madonna where she is fresh and her appearance looks as natural as possible. My vote is still for the Vogue picture (98.181.62.167 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC))

But da "vogue" picture needs lighting and cropping. If you can get that maybe it'll be nicer.--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the Vogue picture needs cropping or lighting. It looks fine the way it is in my opinion. It's not like she's completely in the dark 30 feet away from the camera (SuperCell3000 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC))

why??

Why is it that whenever someone provides something worth value on Wikipedia the editors ignore it? Yet when they post something asinine or wrong or unsupported they get an instant reply???? IF ANYTHING IT SHOULD BE THE OPPOSITE CONSIDERING WE ARE BETTERING YOUR SITE!!!(98.181.62.167 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

Remember that you, too, are an editor, and that we are all volunteers with different interests and time constraints. I am sorry if it sometimes feels like you are speaking to the wind; I'm sure many of us have that experience. Remember that you can be bold and make changes yourself, though if they are big or highly visible changes you should try to get consensus before making those changes. If no one objects in some amount of time, then you should feel free to make that change. Tip: get an account, and people may pay more attention. Leonxlin (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well what about the picture? The section above this one regarding Madonna's most recent picture has given possible pictures to be used. Even with an account i am pretty sure that we cannot change her picture. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

If I understand well, any picture that is not protected can be used? Stills from fan-made videos could be used, then. Israell (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article

Why isn't it a featured article any longer? Not much has changed in the article since last May... Israell (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo

I have to express my opinion regarding the new photo used in the infobox. Could a more suitable and more flattering photo not have been used? I also think it is highly inappropriate to use an image of Madonna brandishing a gun. I propose a more suitable one be used. jwad.... blah | blah | blah 17:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Writers in the section above say the like da vogue one (Vogue) but i feel its a tad too dark and would need to be lightened and cropped. but also we can use any of these:

1.info1 2.info2

--Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What about these?

http://best-of-madonna.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=37

http://best-of-madonna.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=36

http://best-of-madonna.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=44

I dont think they are protected (SuperCell3000 (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, Lil' Monster. But none of those pictures has high resolution or better quality. Neither of them suitable for the infobox. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

More Info

Here may be some recent info that may be added to Madonna's page.

http://www.billboard.com/features/madonna-rules-billboard-com-s-2012-mid-year-1007481152.story#/features/madonna-rules-billboard-com-s-2012-mid-year-1007481152.story

(SuperCell3000 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC))

MDNA Vogue Picture

Editors chose that picture but felt it was too dark and had to be cropped. So, I replaced this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MDNAVogue.jpg with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MDNA_Vogue.jpg . But I'm being asked questions etc. Is it possible to edit a file that we have permission to use, if so, how? Israell (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That picture has bad quality. Only high-resolution photo can replace the current infobox's picture. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
where it say it has to be a high quality?--heart ♥ (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this has been lengthily discussed on this page and most editors are okay with this Vogue picture. It just had to be cropped & lightened and it was. And yeah, all license issues have been settled. When I see this 'Vogue' picture it looks high quality to me. Israell (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no consensus to use that bad-quality "Vogue" picture. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture

above there is a section that has many examples of her being used in pop culre but since wikipedia never responds to anything here i decided to add another link for her being used in pop culture

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/06/04/marvel-loves-the-80s-and-90s/

(98.181.62.167 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC))

Voice

As Madonna is undoubtedly the most successful so9lo artist in history, maybe something should be said about her vocal profile, which, despite what people think, is amazing 3.2 octaves (more than Whitney) and 17.5 seconds kept for a note (more than Whitney), though in her life she has spanned 4.1 octaves. The fact that she doesn't always belt is another thing, plus a very eclectic voice. http://www.divadevotee.com/2009/03/madonna-vocal-profile.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.40.220 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus that entertainer is WP:PTOPIC. Not moved. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna Madonna → Madonna (disambiguation)

– I believe this was proposed before, but I think when individuals search "Madonna", it should redirect to this page. I think Wikipedia's intentions should be to direct the individual to the most searched page. The disambiguation page should be at the top. I would like to hear what others think. I searched Madonna and went to that "disambiguation" page and don't think most people will be searching for the other uses as much. Please discuss. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC). Marty2Hotty (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

comment I've added links to past move discussions to the top of the page. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No, the name Madonna is primarily about Mary (mother of Jesus). It doesn't matter which article is more the target of internet searches; that is not the only measurement of importance we have. More important is the long-established religious history of the word. Binksternet (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment At the height of her popularity some years ago, perhaps this would have been clear-cut. But as things stand now, you need to make a more convincing case. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explains the criteria for primary topic disambiguation. In this case there are two significant uses of the term Madonna (Madonna (entertainer) and Mary (mother of Jesus)) and several less significant ones. Madonna the entertainer clearly fails the A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance test (2000 years of significance v. 30 years). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Another example of why the relatively new "historical significance" criterion of primary topic, which conflicts with the traditional most usage criterion in cases like this, should not be there. In this case this page gets about 500k hits per month, while Mary (mother of Jesus) barely gets 1/10th of that[1]. And that's not even taking into account that many if not most people are getting there with "Mary", not "Madonna". This blatantly non-objective current naming is a violation of WP:NPOV - it's literally pushing the religious POV - contradicted by usage facts - that the religious figure is "more important". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not a religious guy, but 2000 years of one particular usage does not get erased by a few years of internet statistics. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • And I cannot for the life of me see how the current situation, with Madonna as a dab page that references Madonna (entertainer) as its first dab option, two works by amd/or about Madonna (entertainer) as its second and third options, and only then references Mary (mother of Jesus) as its fourth option, can be remotely described as pushing the religious POV, blatantly non-objective and a violation of WP:NPOV. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • See !votes like the one below from Soosim ... personal opinion that "the religious meaning far outweighs... ". Granted it could be worse, with the religious figure at the base name, but the fact remains that if it wasn't for pro-religious bias, then this article about the overwhelmingly most common use of this name would be at Madonna, and the dab page would be at Madonna (disambiguation). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Drivel. What evidence do you have for these allegations? None at all. Soosim's comment did not say that the religious meaning outweighed the others because it was religious. Stop wilfully misinterpreting comments to support your POV and accusing those who oppose you of bias. As I have said, I am not religious in any way, shape or form, and I support the retension of the status quo. Why? Because I have common sense and appreciate that decades do not outweigh centuries, that pop culture does not trump history, and that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia not a fluffy fancruft website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a manual of 21st century culture. The primary meaning of Madonna is still the Mother of Jesus. And no, I'm not in any way religious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - i think the religious meaning far outweighs the current one. nothing wrong with madonna entertainer. Soosim (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I think that the disambiguation at the top would suffice enough. When someone says Madonna they mean the performer and they usually say Mother Mary or another name. Others may hear people call her Madonna but I have never once heard Mother Mary be called Madonna. Pop culture over religion would be a good argument if Madonna hadn't been around for over three decades and a big influence in those decades along with the nickname Madonna not being the most common for Mary. Trenton Davis (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • "Madonna" when used to refer to Mary is (in English-language countries) most commonly found in art, where it is extremely common, has been for centuries and no doubt will be for centuries to come, long after the singer has been largely forgotten. It's ironic, I think, that people are proposing this move when the singer is, of course, named after the mother of Jesus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Name derivation is evidence neither for nor against primacy. Powers T 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I didn't say it was. I said it was ironic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - As currently, the singer is more important than the Mother of Jesus. --Il223334234 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why the religious topic are always primary? --Il223334234 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • They're not. They just tend to have a longer history of usage. These allegations that this is somehow a violation of NPOV motivated by religious belief are tiresome. You don't have to be religious to consider that usage over centuries is more important than usage over a couple of decades; you just have to have common sense, an understanding of history and an appreciation that pop culture is not the be all and end all of knowledge. The sort of people who think the singer is the primary topic here are probably the same sort of people who fill up lists of "greatest singles of all time" with songs released in the last ten years. It's pure recentism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the two topics are far too competitive with each other to determine a primary topic. Madonna may be getting more hits now, but the use of the term in art has long-standing notability that cannot be ignored. This has nothing to do with promoting religion -- I have long been opposed to giving primary topic status to articles like Ruth and Sarah -- but a) giving the readers what they want, and b) academic respectability. Powers T 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The entertainer is the primary topic of Madonna. Most of people around the world don't use or even know that Madonna is the name of Mary (mother of Jesus). Wikipedia should be neutral, this site is not only for certain religious belief. Why is it such a big problem, when the article Mary (mother of Jesus) doesn't use Madonna page? Bluesatellite (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Just for comparison, Wikipedias in other 47 different languages use "Madonna" page for Madonna Ciccone. Just check it! It proves that many nations or languages don't recognize Madonna as Virgin Mary, but Madonna as entertainer. I believe that Wikipedia should have worldwide point of view. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but this is English Wikipedia. What other languages use is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • 'Madonna' is an Italian word, not English. Yes, this is English Wikipedia, but it should represent WP:Worldwide view, not just Christians view or English-speaking people's point of view. I have proved that most of people around the world did not recognize Madonna as Virgin Mary. That's it. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
        • No, it's a word of Italian origin which has entered the English language. You have proved nothing. Other Wikipedias, most of them much smaller and with a more limited editing base than English Wikipedia, are not binding on this one. And yes, English Wikipedia is meant to represent "English-speaking people's point of view". That's why naming conventions state WP:USEENGLISH! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Bluesatellite. And Mary is "Ma Donna", not "Madonna" Unreal7 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No, Mary is Madonna. In this case the words are always run together. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I could say my reasons, but the fact that this is a debate and that everybody does not agree on Madonna as the primary topic is enough.I helpdןǝɥ I 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Madonna is moar important dan da virgin--QUEEN HURT (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The fact that Madonna gets more page views than Mother Mary is one reason. The fact that most of the people who went to the Mother Mary page most likely did not get there by searching Madonna is another. Regardless of popularity, one can not deny that at this moment in time, Madonna is the most famous person alive ever since the death of Michael Jackson. Saying one is more important than the other is a matter of opinion which, to my understanding, is something that Wikipedia is not suppose to have. Not only does Madonna get more views regularly than Mother Mary, but (and this may be an opinion here) she is also more relevant today. Considering there are so many different religions or lack-there-of, and people in the world today are not as religious as they may have been hundreds of years ago. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
  • Oppose. While I'm not the biggest fan of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's "long-term significance" criterion (it is often misused, IMO), I think this is a perfect case of when it should be used. It is obvious that the mother of Jesus and Madonna (art) have a much larger long-term significance. If one article meets one of the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria and another article (or two) meet the other criterion, then I think it's apparent that there is no clear primary topic and that a dab page is the best option. FWIW, I'm not religious. Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because rename request is based solely on assumption. No statistics are given to establish an overwhelming clear primary use. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no clear cut WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it will all be dependent on one's point of view, but (in opposition to the order listed on the disambig page), Madonna Louise Ciccone, the Bay City entertainer, does not eclipse the primacy of the "Original", or depictions of.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not seem to be the Primary Topic, regardless of personal religion, the term Madonna, in English, refers to the religious figure. --MrBoire (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because people who think that "Madonna is the most famous person alive ever since the death of Michael Jackson" scare me. Deor (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thats not even a just reason. It doesn't say most popular it says most famous. Even kids know who Madonna is. Her fame has crossed so many age boundaries. How many people can you really name that do not know who she is? Considering in sales she is behind him as the 4th highest seller. Current pop icons do not count because they are only relevant to the time. Your personal feelings about her are irrelevant. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC))
      • Having trouble with humor, are we? Let me, then, clarify that my "vote" was a joke, and I no more expect the closer of this discussion to take it into account than I expect him or her to take into account the opinion of the "most famous person alive" guy. The truth behind my statement, however, is that an encyclopedia needs to take a somewhat wider historical view than "since the death of Michael Jackson" and that some whippersnapper's view of the comparative "relevance" of Ms. Ciccone and the Virgin Mary is not much of a contribution to this discussion. (And such people do scare me.) Deor (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I said that she's the most famous person alive since his death, I didn't say that she was irrelevant until then. Me saying "since the death of Michael Jackson" was only to state her relevance in the world today. And again not only does the Madonna page get more hits but i highly doubt that the Virgin Mary is getting her very few views with the search of Madonna. Considering the Virgin Mary is a character in a book, I feel that a real person who has made a large contribution to our culture is much more important than a person who supposedly gave birth to a religious figure. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
          • Not everyone thinks pop stars are the most famous or most relevant people alive you know. It's a highly subjective comment and many would not agree with you. As to your last comment, I assume you can't be serious. Whether the Virgin Mary was real or fictitious is utterly irrelevant to her importance to world culture. The Virgin Mary is still significant to many millions worldwide (and no, I'm not one of them) 2,000 years after her death (or creation, if you prefer). Will Ms Ciccone be? Well, we don't know, but let's face it, probably not. But that's not even relevant, because, as stated above, in English, "Madonna" is usually a reference to an artistic representation of the Virgin Mary. Most churches in the world (Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic at least) have at least one, as do many millions of homes, and this has been the case for the last 2,000 years. Does that make this term less relevant than Ms Ciccone? I really think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If this was based on the relative popularity of these 2 people it might be "no primary topic". However Madonna is how the singer is normally known, it's unusual to hear her called anything else. The religious figure is usually known as "the Virgin Mary" or "Mary mother of Jesus", it's relatively unusual to call her "Madonna", at least in the English-speaking countries. PatGallacher (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Does nobody actually read comments above before they post? "Madonna" in English usually refers to an artistic representation of the Virgin Mary, not the Virgin Mary herself, and in that sense it is very common in the English-speaking world. Read any guidebook that mentions a church! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I have read the prior discussion, but images of the Virgin Mary are not common in Protestant churches. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Not in non-conformist churches, but they are very common in Anglican churches, and even more common in Catholic and Orthodox churches. The term is also commonly used in art history and many Madonnas appear in art galleries all over the world. This is not a religious issue, but one of common terminology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. If you google Madonna -wikipedia and it's page after page of results about the entertainer, so she is certainly primary with respect to usage. As far as the art form goes, Madonna (art) would stay where it is regardless of the outcome here. If anything, I would expect its prominence to increase after a move, since it would get a hat note on the singer's article. The "long term significance" criteria is designed to make it easier to designate an academic topic as primary, which in this case would be the art form. That would actually be my first choice. Neither the entertainer nor the DAB have long-term significance. So if those are choices, the long-term significance issue should not be considered. Kauffner (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose In this case, there are strong arguments for both Madonnas, so in the absence of clear consensus on a single primary topic, a DAB page is the right solution. Note that those above saying the Virgin Mary is the primary topic, if that is your argument, then you should be proposing to move Madonna to point to Virgin Mary. My argument is that instead, there is a stalemate, neither one can claim primacy, so we create a dab.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's important to remember that this isn't a popularity contest between the entertainer and the religious figure; we're just trying to help people get to the article they are looking for. I also note that there is a cost of not making the entertainer the primary topic, which is the ongoing task of disambiguating the new links created to Madonna on a daily basis, almost all of which are referring to the entertainer. Nonetheless, I think that the long-term significance of Madonna (art) does mean that the entertainer narrowly misses the mark for being made the primary topic. It is, however, appropriate for the entertainer to remain listed first on the DAB, because that is what most people are looking for.--Trystan (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am seeing a few support opinions based on "current popularity", however per WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I'd say Madonna the "mother of Jesus" has a slightly greater enduring notability over Madonna from Michigan.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Popularity shouldn't dictate whether or not an article receives prominence over another with an identical name. If I search for "MJ" I don't get redirected to Michael Jackson's page in spite of "MJ" being almost historically attributed to the entertainer. --Valce Talk 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That is a completely different situation. "MJ" is a nickname not the person's actual name. Even though Madonna's full name isnt Madonna it is her stage name and what she is known as. Michael Jackson's stage name is not MJ it is Michael Jackson. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote: MDNA Vogue Infobox Picture

Here is the edited (lightened & cropped) version of the MDNA Vogue picture that was approved by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MDNA_Vogue.jpg

An editor insists no consensus was reached and this picture can't still be used. A vote is indeed needed.

  • Support Whenever I see this picture in the Infobox, it looks high quality to me. The larger version looks fine too. Also, most editors seemed to agree the Vogue picture should be used. Israell (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the lightened version loses far too much detail (in white areas of the image) compared to the version on Commons, and it makes her face looked washed out. Powers T 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer da vogue one put it bak--QUEEN HURT (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer the vogue one. The 4 year gap is too big for Madonna she really looks different every few years. The vogue one should be updated once a higher quality one is found but I think a picture of her performing vogue on the MDNA tour is great because of the outfit! Trenton Davis (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – the 2008 photo is too old, I cannot see anything wrong with the proposed MDNA Tour photo. jwad.... blah | blah | blah 20:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Really? You can't see the blown highlights in her shirt and the paleness of her face? Powers T 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although I prefer the Vogue picture, it is too small. You can barely see her face and if it were to be resized then it would no longer be high quality. I think that instead of holding a vote, we should be looking for a different picture. At least one that was taken after early 2011. It would still be more recent than the current photo. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
  • Oppose The purpose of infobox picture is to identify subject easily, that's why high-resoulution and clear-looking picture is more preferable. The 2008 photo has more quality compared to Vogue photo. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to agree with the two above. The photo is cropped too small and it isn't exactly a "oh yes, this is Madonna picture". That would be the current one, where you can clearly see her face and who she is. It may be a few years old, but that doesn't make any difference. Statυs (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The photo is too small with poor clarity. The present one might be a little old but is definitely a better picture than the suggested one. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pic is too small and not the best representation of the artist. As the MDNA Tour has recently started, we should wait for better quality pictures to surface. Meanwhile, the previous picture is OK. —Gheiratina (Touch) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How about we use this one?? Tiff it's more recent and high quality??--189.241.40.230 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Her eyes are closed and her face is turned. An infobox picture has to accurately portray what the person looks like; meaning that there is nothing stopping the viewer from recognizing who it is. Statυs (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

People... What do you mean by "too small" Look at this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britney_Europe.jpg When in its Infobox, the Britney picture looks just as small as the Vogue one. Anyway... I'll look for another pic. Israell (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The current photo is fine. Statυs (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Records

Why is it that artists like madonna have no records shown but people like Michael Jackson have the Guinness book of world records on his achievements page? Then when i asked why they did not add her records, an editor responded with "That is not an award." Wikipedia is bias (72.219.42.115 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

The Legacy section

Needs cleaning up. Much of it is just a string of gushing quotes about her influence and skill - the kind of writing that's regularly produced by music and celeb magazines. The section makes next to no attempt to discern between her contributions as a musician and as a business person, and much of what gets said about her business skills could be said about almost anyone who has been hot property in showbiz and is determined to run their own business - something she is not at all unique in doing. Elvis Costello is probably just as skilled at managing his career and at reinventing himself musically, but he is operating in a slightly less commercially blockbuster part of the market. Strausszek (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think it needs to be cleaned as well as many other pages such as Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson. This is the norm for legacy sections on wikipedia unless of course you are on the bias list (them being Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Lady Gaga, Elvis Presley and Whitney Houston). There are plenty of reliable sources that talk of how unique she is and of her influence. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

I agree she's outstanding in many ways, certainly in her ability to resonate with the climate of the age over a long time. But a quote like this one has no business in thát section or indeed the article, it's almost a sales blurb:
"As Taraborrelli noted, she already showed strong business sensibilities early in her career when she signed Freddie de Mann, Michael Jackson's former manager, to manage her career. As she said to Smash Hits magazine, "I thought, who's the most successful person in the music industry and who's his manager? I want him." Since it was Jackson, Madonna wanted de Mann more than anything else, and chance came when she learned that they had parted ways. After signing de Mann, Madonna's associates had expressed their apprehension as to whether that was a good business decision by her. Madonna was adamant that since de Mann was free he would be able to devote all his time into his career. True to her, Madonna's popularity increased significantly, being asked to do more promotional tours and media appearances" - This is not about business skills, it's about being able to identify one of the most successful agents in the business, who must have been a guy everybody who cared professionally about the business side of popular music knew about at the time, and having the financial muscle (through the record company) and opportunity to hire him. And the rise in public visibility could have been influenced by any number of factors other than de Mann, first off by MTV. Might as well have said, "Michael Jackson showed his genius in appreciating music when he bought most of the Beatles song catalogue".Strausszek (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only do things such as this have nothing to do with her legacy but they make her seem less than what she is. I think that her changing pop music, women in music industry, fashion in the music industry, and morals in the music industry should be talked about more. I mean how often do your CONTEMPORARIES take influence from you? This happens with very few/only the most iconic artists in history. Meanwhile, pages for Michael Jackson are being checked round the clock to make sure he is seen as the creator of music and the father of jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.42.115 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned out the bit about de Mann and a few other cheesy, highly overstated or irrelevant spots in the section, but there's more to do. Strausszek (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Well in the process can you please add some other things to replace them. The section above this one has a few things they skipped over. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC))
I think that while we're at it, someone should add a sub-section under her legacy called Philanthropy for her fight for women's rights and LGBT rights (right now she's being sued for supporting gay rights in Russia) as well as her charity work. Also, a way to replace some of the bullshit in the legacy section thats already there, you could add her most important controversies such as the ageist controversy she is facing now and the controversy she faced on her previous tour and the controversy (SuperCell3000 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

Request for Legacy

I am requesting that Madonna's Legacy section have the information about her being listed as one of the All-Time 100 Top Fashion Icons by Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2110513_2110627_2110639,00.html

As well as Pete Wilson using her to help his chance of election and the controversy because of it http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2129,00.html

As well as he troubles with the Vatican being named 4th Top Vatican Pop Culture Moment in history by time magazine. This kind of controversy has influenced artists such as Lady Gaga with songs of catholic relations. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2026525_2026524_2026526,00.html

As well as her being number 36 on Rolling Stone Magazine's list of 100 Greatest artists of All-Time. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/madonna-19691231

I am also asking permission to add a section about her charity work. I dont really know how things work as far as adding sections or adding information. So i am assuming that the protocol is to give the sources here before adding anything.

Madonna was also called the Queen of Fashion by Billboard

http://www.billboard.com/#/photogalleries/madonna-s-fashion-evolution-50-iconic-looks-1006547552.story

(72.219.42.115 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this a go, though with 314 references to sift through, it may take a few days. As a first port of call, I'll be looking at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 and seeing if any of the problems listed there still exist, and if so, do they apply to the lesser standards at GAN (eg: a Fox News article may be bashed at FAC for not being a "prestige" source, but as far as GAN is concerned, if it's reliable and written about with a NPOV, it's okay). Watch this space. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Checking links brings up 3 dead ones : #78, #121 and #243. Tried them several times and each one consistently reports an HTTP 500 error. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done except for ref #121, for me it is working. 11Jorn talk
  • I'm a little concerned about a few of the negative or potentially upsetting comments that are currently attributable only to a single source. Is it really necessary to mention she saw her late mother's mouth sewn up, or that she was specifically asked to perform fellatio when attacked? For the former, I'd just trim the quote down (lengthy quotes run the risk of being a borderline copyvio), and for the latter I think just saying "she was returning from a rehearsal when she was attacked in an alleyway" will still convey the sentiment of vulnerability that we want to get across here.
    •  Done omitted the mention of fellatio. The sentence even linked to an article on it, which is quite disheartening, I agree. And contains far too much potential as libel to be kept in, supported only by one source. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously as far as images go, we can't use what we don't have, but for someone like Madonna, a selection of photos from, say 1984, 1990, 1998 and today will get across her desire to continually reinvent her image far quicker than any text could.
  • Reference 19 (Rolling Stone biography) doesn't mention the alternate title of "Truth or Dare" being "In Bed With Madonna". However, I think this should be very easy to source, as certainly the U.K. I've seen the phrase "In bed with 'x'" been used for other things as a pastiche / parody of the documentary style, such as In Bed With Chris Needham. I thought Louis Theroux did an "In bed with..." series, but it appears I'm confusing it with something else.
 Done. 11Jorn talk
Is Digital Spy really a reliable source? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 3 (Time piece) is behind a firewall, so I can't check if it contains the assertions referenced in the article.
  •  Done I've removed this as #4 supports this. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 25 (Allmusic discography) doesn't mention how many weeks "Like A Virgin" was at number one. Chart Stats is good for resolving this sort of thing.
  •  Done I've used a Billboard source. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 32 (MTV awards piece) doesn't mention that her first MTV awards performance was "iconic"
  •  Not done The title of the article refers to the performances as iconic and goes on to describe other similar performances.
  • In the last paragraph of the "1982-85" section, "Madonna remained defiant and unapologetic" might want a citation - reference 44 (MusicoMania article) can be used for this
  •  Done
  • Reference 34 (asserting diamond certification of "Like A Virgin") doesn't seem to contain anything about this
  •  Done What an awfully confusing site! It's a database of Gold & Platinum records - not Diamond! It's kind of useless as although the number of times Like A Virgin is made platinum means it is diamond, it's not explicit. I've removed it. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning the Wembley gig on the "Who's That Girl" tour drew an audience of 70,000? Reference 50 can be used to cite this
  •  Done Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The paragraph dealing with Pepsi sponsorship is cited to the Fox source. As it contains potentially controversial information, it may be worth finding a secondary source to back up some of the things stated here.
  •  Done Added a NY Times source also. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Be careful about citing tabloid stuff like People and The Daily Mail - in this case, I think you've done the right thing here by citing multiple sources and sticking to plain facts
  • The timescale for the "Blonde Ambition" tour (asserted here as four months) is not cited
  • Does it need sourcing? It's not really challenging. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • For a good article, yes, it should be cited. Otherwise somebody could claim it was three months and start edit warring about it - unlikely, but possible. (And believe me, you'll never ceased to be amazed at what people will edit war about!) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Reworded. Jennie | ☎ 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly what is reference 75 ("Warner finds solace in farewell CD") citing?
  • I think it's a magazine/newspaper? Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Citation 81 does mention anything about Madonna dating Tony Ward. Per our BLP policy, this needs sourcing ASAP or removing.
  •  Done I couldn't find a reliable source, I'll remove it. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 81 does state that Vanilla Ice was strongly critical of "Sex" - is this worth adding to the relevant point in the article
  •  Done Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The reference for criticism for "Body Of Evidence" seems to come from user generated content on Rotten Tomatoes, which I think is hence unreliable. FWIW I don't dispute the claim - my then housemate went to see this when it was first released and stated it was probably the worst film he'd ever seen - but it does need a reliable source.
  •  Not done The collection of critic reviews can be found half way down the page, all of which show a negative reception. Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 36 (Billboard chart stats) doesn't state how many weeks "Take A Bow" topped the charts for
  •  Done I've replaced it. Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 100 doesn't cite that she wore 370 different costumes on set
  •  Done I've removed the exact number as it cannot be cited. Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick status update on where we are - I've done everything up to 1997, and I would estimate there's about another six hours' work to get the review finished. I'll see if I can get a bit more done later today, and in the week. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done Re-linked Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 116 talks about "Ray Of Light" being used in the promotion of Windows XP - however this put against a sentence talking about the single's chart position
  •  Done Replaced Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 123 (CNN article about "What It Feels Like For a Girl") is cited for the phrase "depicted Madonna committing murders and involved in car accidents", but the reference itself merely says "a crime and vandalism spree"
  •  Done Replaced Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 129 cites the "Golden Raspberry" award for "Die Another Day", but it's not obvious from the link where this information is
  •  Done Way too confusing, I removed it. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 144 states the Re-Invention World Tour "a gross in the $120 million range", but the article states it earned $125 million
  •  Done Reworded. Jennie | ☎ 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 150 is supposed to be describing "Confessions of a Dance Floor" , but the reference seems to just talk more about the chart and sales statistics
  •  Not done Ref #144 is about Tsunami Aid, which Ref do you mean? Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Removed this, couldn't cite it. Jennie | ☎ 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that "Hung Up" samples "Gimme Gimme Gimme" heavily? The BBC source mentions it and goes into some depth about it
  •  Done I've included this, surprised no one has already. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 153 states the Confessions Tour grossed about $193.7 million, not £194.7 million as stated in the article
  •  Done I've replaced it. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 155 is used to cite the phrase "bishops from Düsseldorf." But according to the source, the complaint came from Bishops about a concert in Dusseldorf.
  •  Done Reworded. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 156 (People article about the response to using a cross on the Confessions tour) doesn't appear to have the quote cited
  •  Done The quote is on the right, in a scroll-down box. Jennie | ☎ 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 168 states I Am Because We Are received critical acclaim - worth adding to the article
  •  Done Included this. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 169 (LA times article on Filth and Wisdom) does not contain the quote cited
  •  Done Removed it. Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 188 is used to cite "led to a rift between them [Madonna and Christopher Ciccone" - this might be original research, instead quote directly what the source says about the relationship between the two
  •  Done Changed Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The whole of the "2010–present" I think goes into too much depth when compared to the rest of the article, and puts undue weight on it. I think this is a more general problem with BLP articles where the subject continues to be active during the lifetime of Wikipedia, and people add in the odd sentence here and there as they find things in the news. For instance, the Material Girl fashion line probably needs a sentence or two, and the critical response to MDNA can be trimmed down to something similar without all the quotes.
  •  Done Trimmed this down, think it could even further to be honest. Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 214 states "Critical respones to the film [W.E.] has been negative, but looking at the actual critic reviews on Metacritic, it would seem that "mixed" would be a better term
  •  Done I agree, changed Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In "Influences", it states "Madonna is dedicated to Kabbalah", yet at least one reference I looked at (sorry, can't remember which one now!) says she's distanced herself from it in recent years.
  •  Not done There are sources on the internet showing her attending the NYC Kabbalah Centre in May 2012. Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have now gone though the whole career section. There's still quite a lot of the article to go, but a lot of it is cited from books I don't have, so it's impossible to check a lot of this. As it stands, I can see over 30 unresolved issues, which is a lot of work to get through. Even disregarding the rest of the article, do you think you have all these fixed within a week, bearing in mind there might well be things I haven't spotted yet that also needed to be added to the workload? If I find substantially more issues with the rest of the article, it really does start to cross the line between "On Hold" and "Fail", I'm afraid. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph of "Musical style" is mostly reliant on a single book source, and would seem to be just one person's opinion. I think this entire paragraph can go without losing anything, except possibly the influence on the gay community (which I think would require a couple of sources) and the critical acclaim of Ray of Light (which is documented elsewhere)
  •  Done I agree, it's very clunky, I've removed and merged. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 235 cites that Madonna was whipped with a rubber hose as a child. Again, per our BLP policy this needs citing multiple times or toned down
  •  Not done I could understand if this didn't come from the original source, but it is the original, and any other sources would just be others referring to the original. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The quote from reference 268 talks about lip syncing in general - the sentence here gives the impression it's attributed specifically to Madonna, which strays into original research
  •  Done Reworded
  • The quote from reference 275 is a bit out of context, and overlong. In the same source, Elton also says "I don't think it's the best Madonna record and I'm a big fan." The quote gives the impression he can't stand her, rather then merely being disappointed with her post Ray of Light work
  •  Done I've re-orded this section and trimmed the quote. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There's an update here - they've made up, apparently!--Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the "Legacy" section wants at least one other source attributed to it lest it be accused of puffery. As reference 276 is behind a paywall, I can't easily check it
  •  Done Added a source from MTV. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 284 does contain the quote cited
  •  Done It doesn't - removed. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Aside from her critical acknowledgement, Madonna has also earned overwhelming commercial accomplishments" - overwhelming to whom? Probably just best to stick to the bare facts cited by the sources
  •  Done Very weasely, removed.Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 287 seems to be a search box that doesn't support the sentence its cited to.
  •  Done Agreed, removed. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlike reference 288, I wouldn't describe Madonna as a "rock" artist - "dance / pop" artist, maybe. Still, if it's in a good reference (which it is), it can stay
  • Reference 289 states that the Sticky & Sweet Tour "remains the highest-grossing tour of all time by a solo artist". This reference is four years old and is just waiting to become in accurate. Better to explicitly state, "as of 2008, it was the highest-grossing tour of all time by a solo artist"
  •  Done Ahahaha, I have to say I thought this was quite funny, who ever went to that much trouble is dedicated. I removed it. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There a few bits in the second paragraph of "Legacy" not attribute to any source - I've tagged these.
  •  Done Sourced. I've replaced the third quote as it slipped into original research. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of "Legacy" seems to repeat a few things already stated in "Musical Style", particularly her ability to reinvent herself.
  •  Done I removed parts of it, but it is important. Her ability to reinvent herself is arguably key to her legacy. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 299 seems to be a bit POV pushing.
  • Hmm...As this is from a published source I'm not sure what to do. I think I'll leave it for someone else to decide. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 306 is behind a firewall
  •  Done Removed.

Well I think that's it, so I'm putting the review On hold until everything else is resolved, at which point I'll do a final check, and if all's good, it'll pass.

And finally, as some light hearted relief ... some personal memories that didn't make it to the article (probably due to lack of references) are Doc Cox singing a faux nursery rhyme on That's Life! circa 1990 with the words "Twinkle, twinkle, little star ... what is in Madonna's bra?" and the occasional reference to Madonna in the British rock press as "Madge" (whether this is disparaging or affectionate went unrecorded). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done Someone else has done this :) Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through again and I've found a few minor MOS issues, which I've fixed myself, which means the only outstanding issue I can see is I believe "Truth or Dare" being named "In Bed With Madonna" in Europe is cited to an unreliable source. I'll have a look round for a better source myself now, after which we'll be done. Watch this space.... --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously???

Is it me or has this page been ignored for the past 2 months? (72.219.42.115 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

  • Have you seen the 40+ issues in the transcluded GA review directly above this? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---That may be true but considering that is the only thing thats been paid attention to i dont really think it counts. Especially considering thats something thats been up for a source review so of course a site such as wikipedia would pay attention to that. They want to make sure their information is correct, however, that is not the only section thats been added in the past 2 months (72.219.42.115 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

RfC Ray of Light sales figures

Please see Talk:Ray of Light#RfC: Ray of Light album sales worldwide. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2012

Pic on main page is NOT during the MDNA tour. That is her in the "Future Lovers" costume. Confessions tour 2006. Embarrasing mistake, indeed! 71.182.232.163 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Under "Early life, 2nd paragraph, 8th sentence is found: "There was so much left unsaid, so many untangled and unresolved emotions," "Untangled, (makes no sense), should be "tangled". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScaryTruth (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening doesn't contain a single source

and there's a lot of "facts" thrown in there. Shouldn't the page get tagged as needing sources? Partyclams (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead does not necessarily need references as the reference should appear in the rest of the article where the information appears. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article so should be able to stand without references. Keith D (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Queen of Pop

This title needs to be added to her page. No other artists is referred to with this title, especially not by reputable critics and so often. This is not up for debate, it needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources, please. Powers T 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Madonna-Me-Women-Writers-Queen/dp/1593764294

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-queen-of-pop-20110706/1-madonna-0325148

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/03/26/madonnas-mdna-the-queen-of-pop-wants-you-to-dance-not-think/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/fashion/red-carpet/madonna-the-queen-of-pop-performs-in-scotland.2012072827

http://seattletimes.com/html/matsononmusic/2019287536_madonna_is_still_the_queen_of.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2085563/Princess-Beatrice-parties-Queen-Pop-attends-Madonnas-film-premiere-party.html

http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/people/happy-birthday-madonna-queen-of-pop-54-today

http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/the-queen-of-pop-reclaims-her-thrones-1.2767479#.UHfuEW-HLnA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/madonna-everybody-anniversary-photo-contest-_n_1935500.html (First paragraph of the article)

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2012/8/16/happy-birthday-to-madonna-queen-of-popand-controversy.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madonna-Queen-Pop-DVD/dp/B000NO1V6A

http://hellobeautiful.com/331871/the-queen-of-pop-mourns-the-king-of-pop/

If you need more, there's thousands. She's had this title for years, just like Michael Jackson as the King. Yes some people will name others, just like tweens think Beibers the king, but her career speaks for itself and so does the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not picking sides here, but I see a few issues with your little presentation. First of all, this is up for "debate", like it or not. Next, you seem to be backtracking what you said previously; No other artists is referred to with this title -> Yes some people will name others. Let's keep it to facts and nothing more. Also, while some of the sources you provided are definitely usable (haven't read them yet), a good half are not reliable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, my point when I said yes people will name others, was specifically aimed at fanblogs/facebook groups, and things like that. People who aren't educated in music and will name whoever they like as King or Queen, not critical authorities, whose opinions hold any weight. That's why I gave the example of Beiber being the King in teen girls opinion, as ridiculous as that is. I stand by my previous point that anyone with any credibility refers to Madonna with this title, and has for quite some time. Also, I realize not every thing I listed is Huffington Post, but I was trying to show the international agreement on this issue and just how many different kinds of sources refer to her as this. From book titles, to magazines, to news papers and like I said, if you need more, I'll provide them. I'm not the first fan who's tried to get this included on this page. How many other artists with her untouchable track record have had fans continually ask you guys for this correction to be made? I hope I don't sound standoffish, it's just strange that there seems to be such resistance to make this happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Past discussions have been inconclusive:
Basically, the argument on one side is that lots of reliable sources can be found saying Madonna is the Queen of Pop. The argument on the other side is that lots of reliable sources can be found saying other female singers have been called the Queen of Pop. I don't think there is a good solution. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Have been called? Yes. Have been called so many times, for so long, from such prominent sources? No. I know exactly what the solution to this is, it just seems like wikipedia doesn't want to acknowledge it. Again, I don't believe this is debatable and it really does feel like you are choosing sides. You asked for sources, I provided several, which said were credible (at least some). Now you're saying there are sources for others artists. Well there aren't nearly as many, and I contest that they are as credible as some may argue. The argument on the other side (which I can't even believe exist) has been faulty as best, citing one of two scattered sources from artists whose track records don't compare. Again, how many of these other artists have people continually calling them this, and fans asking you to correct it? Why not make the the correction, and see if it comes under fire? I can't imagine how it would from anyone with any basic knowledge of music, but why not compromise after all this time, with so many people asking you to do this? Read some of the articles online that call her this. Some are extremely critical and even insulting to her. However, they still don't deny her that title. That's not opinion, that's not debate. That's a critical assessment of someone whom, while they may not like, they can't deny the title to. I just can't believe this is such a struggle to fix. It's a no-brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Huffington Post is not a top-of-the-line source, not even close. Also, I can list several other females that have been called Queen of Pop by several music annalists and critics.
I can post this for many more females (and many more sources for each one). So as you can see, this poses difficulty.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment:: Poses no difficulties in no way. For that, it no would be Michael Jackson the King of Pop or Christina Aguilera, Queen of Reinvention ... and so ... This article would not be necessary then. Will provide, numerous references in several languages for several years which indicate that Madonna is the queen of pop:

Spanish
French, Portuguese and many Latin language

AND MORE, More, more: And other newspapers and websites in Latin american and Latin Europe.

You see in the neutrally, the title of Queen of Pop is irrelevant for many artists, except for Madonna (is a honorific nicknames in popular music). Probably many or few media, to address certain singer fememina like a queen of pop, but do not reach such a scale as Madonna, in the sense that this is documented in Media conglomerate: books, advertising, universities, critics, references and more, more (and other artists not pass).... It is common sense. Regards, 190.56.253.204 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


^Exactly! Again, I see nothing that makes any legit argument that this is "difficult" or up to debate. As for Mariah and Whitney, those were a hand full of scattered articles throughout the years that are more opinion and never really held any substance. Also, since we're being so technical, I'd point out that the last ten-fifteen years of their careers Whitney and Mariah produced R&B exclusively. Also, please look at influence and tours. No one comes close to the impact of Madonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I think it's Groupshift: Petergriffin9901 and Binksternet. Because their response is not impartial. New again, This article would not be Necessary to be in Wikipedia. And the sources= Madonna queen of pop, are several media conglomerate: books, universities, critics, references and more (and to also, by year), and is exactly the opposite with the other singers. I think es necesary a census, because. Regards, 190.56.253.25 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Mariah and Whitney were influential in completely different worlds than Madonna. The latter influenced the stars that usually lack much of sheer singing ability, and are more well-known for their videos, extravagant costumes, controversy etc. The former ladies are known for purely for their vocals (best two voices out there, hence what a real "singer" is and strives to be) and have impacted probably every singer of the last 20 years in one way or another. So, actually, there is no comparison. Now I'm not arguing that Madonna deserves this title more than these two (they have never stuck to pop and are not the "typical" pop star). However, I'm trying to show you how its not so simple. Many females have been billed this title. Show me any other male performer referred to as "King of Pop". I doubt you'd find any.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And again, that's just not true. I agree Whitney and Mariah are very different and are certainly power houses when it comes to vocals, but the comparison of times they've been given this label versus Madonna is so minute it's not even worth consideration, and as you pointed out, they have not stuck to pop music. Not by a long shot. That alone makes any article referring to them as that invalid. A lot of Madonna fans have never even heard of them being given this title. I certainly hadn't until I saw people arguing it here. And how many of the people calling them that weren't saying it as fans. Did they have people criticizing them, as Madonna has, but still allot them the respect of that title? Because that's the kind of weight Madonna holds in the industry. And again, frequency should count for something, and if you look at anything recent, with the exception of one no-name news article right after Whitney's passing, I can think of no time in recent history either of them were referred to as this. And as for others being called the King, people have recently called Justin Beiber the new (or soon to be) King of Pop, and Usher as well. Kanye West declared himself King of Pop after Michael's passing, even though he produces rap. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say any one of those claims holds any water and the same should be said for anyone combating Madonna. For fans this is the epitome of "that simple". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Here she is on the Golden Globes being introduced as the Queen of Pop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9QjtvkOYL0

And here's an event in Paris in her honor... http://www.queenofpopparty.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The greatest singers of all time (female) are considered to be Celine Dion, Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey and yes they did influence people to prove that you could be huge in the business without being a full on entertainer. But every singer since their debuts? That seems incredibly farfetched. I can probably count on one hand the amount of artists who have sang with a Whitney or Mariah-esque quality considering that their "styles" were actually very typical styles of the R&B/Soul genre.

Meanwhile, Madonna has influenced almost every female after 1982 from Adele to Alanis Morissette to Missy Elliot. Whether it be with her obvious fashion trends, always being ahead of the curb musically, her incredibly unique musical sound and image that has been copied or has influenced the looks of others many times, the simple fact that she was the first to put women on the map of the music industry, or simply what she stood for. The list goes on. I agree that comparing the influence of Madonna to Whitney or Mariah is pointless because it's like comparing a diamond to a shiny rock. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC))

First, I must apologize because my English is spotty, but I think that this message does not affect both the compresibilidad (I hope).

@ Petergriffin9901, we have fallen into a huge bias. Unfortunately, this is a slippery slope, but it is common sense; so it's not so hard after all. The fact that Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Elton John, Shakira, Nicki Minaj and several "divas" have been called one, two, three or seven times by some media as "Queen of Pop", is mostly no invalid. Invalid, because from the point of view general, that title is accredited without precedents to Madonna. His argument that Whitney or Mariah sing better than Madonna (?), is totally subjective and misplaced (conflict of interest, maybe?. Good, i Wikipedia:Presume buena fe). I will not go into details, because it is more than enough, and everyone has different perspectives, but Madonna's voice has been studied and there are better voices that Whitney or Mariah: Sarah Brightman, Adele, Christina Aguilera or Celine Dion, for example.

On the other hand, is contradicted yourself by saying: ”Mariah and Whitney were influential in completely different worlds than Madonna. […] Madonna and (other star of pop): extravagant costumes, controversy etc”. I can deduce that you have to know that if Mariah or Whitney are called as "Queen of Pop" for two or three media is incoducente, is because they are not even pop genre, It would be the same with many other artists or that if Huffington Post and Time call Donna Summer or Dolly Parton as "Queen of Rock and Roll" for example, that does not mean that Tina Turner is no longer? ¿or what?.

In addition, pop basically means what you say: extravagances, scandals, tours, records, lyrics, etc. and end of all this has defined Madonna, and even her successors (as you say) Madonna wannabe. But so yes, neither Mariah or Whitney are safe from extravagance or scandal, above all Whitney, because she paid with own life (style of rock star) or no?.

Moreover, you say: “I can post this for many more females (and many more sources for each one”. But, I search but find nothing, in fact, there are limitedly. With Madonna is otherwise, of course, we're talking about language in language, year by year, through newspapers, books, magazines, critics, universities, television and all possible means, and is exactly the opposite with the Other of “many more females”; Or am I wrong?.

Finally, as no one owns articles, I will use magic with common sense and be brave to edit and add in Also Know as [tab of Madonna (entertainer)], Queen of pop; Otherwise, I do not see necessary the existence of the article, or than featured articles as Elvis Presley, have text plain as: “he is often referred to as the "King of Rock and Roll" or simply "the King"”, when the nicknames “The King of Rock and Roll” you have been credited to several, including, Michael Jackson. In addition, the first to be called King of Pop was Frank Sinatra and latter Elvis Presley (and no Sir. Jackson). After all, there is no census on this and above all, a specific policy to undo my edit. Thanks for understanding. Best Regards, [[User:Chrishonduras|<font color="#00BFFF"></font><font color="#FF0000">Chris</font>]].<sup>[[User talk:Chrishonduras|<font color="#00BFFF"><big>Schweitzer</big></font>]]</sup> (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As with other articles (Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson, Celine Dion), it's already mentioned in the legacy section where the nickname can be given proper context with supporting text. Frankly, honorific nicknames in the lead is WP:PEACOCK for any artist, including Michael Jackson and Elvis. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Nothing personal, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. It must be the language issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Which photo for the infobox?

Current Candidates:

1
File:MadonnaVogueMDNATour.png
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

A new editor would like to see a different photo in the infobox. Perhaps it is time once again to choose the best photo! I like the David Shankbone shot, image No. 1. Other opinions? Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: Sorry for the intrusion, but, i think  the second image. Regards, 190.56.253.25 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I think 3, 6 and 9 are good choices. —Jennie | ☎ 20:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: It is normal in WP biographies to have a head and shoulders closeup shot where available, in preference to a full body shot. Images 1 & 3 come closest to that normal ideal. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


I like 2, but not in black and white. It definitely needs to change though. The pic doesn't represent her well at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.60 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • 1 is clearly the most encyclopedic of the available choices. 3 would be fine except that she's not looking at the camera and you can't see her eyes. Powers T 13:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This article

I have just read the entirety of this article and am very disturbed that it reads like some extraordinary PR-guff. It is a non-stop eulogy, nearly putting this pop singer onto a god-like status, which is unbecoming to a serious encyclopaedia such as Wiki. Where is the balance and critical appreciation, without bias? It would seem, with respect, to have been written by either a dedicated fan or someone who wishes to remove all contrary statements, quotes or information. I have inserted two current and sourced items of news/information about this singer (re Elton John and the Russian court case) and it will be interesting to see how long it takes before it is either expunged or whitewashed, in the apparent hope of keeping this woman on the same level as her namesake... Manxwoman (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of your addition is relevant to this article. If you want to add criticism, then make sure it comes from reputed critic or author, not from her jealous peer. How can biased commentary like her career is over, Her tour has been a disaster, fairground stripper, etc improve the quality of this article. And as for the Russian court case, it has nothing to do with "Music videos and live performance" section, it has been added to the related tour article. Regards Bluesatellite (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
6 Hours! Even faster than I thought. I rest my case. I certainly hope that an administrator starts to look into the massive bias in the editing of this article. Perhaps somebody can quote the Wiki rule when it appears that an editor (or editors) are "owning" an article and removing any "heretical" or "blasphemous" content. I have not yet come across an article anywhere on Wiki that has the same level of hysterical and manic removal of anything that potentially evens-out the revolting eulogy of this particular article. To be specific, to call Elton John a "jealous peer" is just naive and a bias in itself. He is a respected musician, around a lot longer than Madonna, who has firm opinions about other musicians professionalism (particularly when it comes to charging people to watch someone mime) and has the right and position to state his views. Because those views do not necessarily reflect the intended endless adoration of the subject matter of the article is not a good enough reason to excise the comments.Manxwoman (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't like Madonna's music enough to have purchased a single album or video. Nevertheless, I respect Madonna for her business skill. I have been editing this article for some time now and I think it is suitable with the text as is. It certainly does not need bitchy snipes from jealous celebrities to round out the generally positive image. Instead, if negative aspects are to be incorporated, they should be high quality observers such as scholars analyzing pop music, or pop attitudes toward religion, or pop fashion. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
How interesting, so anything stated by, for instance, a respected musician such as Elton John that does not "round out the generally positive image" that has been created around this pop singers Wiki article, is expunged? Where in the Wiki rules does it say that sourced negative comments may not be added to an article? Since when does a fair-comment quote from a respected peer become unusable? And "I think it is suitable with the text as is" means that YOU have made a decision and therefore no one may change it? Please will you tell us all by what right you have taken sole editorial and decision-making control of this article? Are you a "high quality observer" or a "scholar" as you mention? If so please enlighten us all with you qualifications. I am getting more and more concerned about the apparent cabal that is controlling this article. Manxwoman (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
If you really are asking which Wikipedia guideline covers this question, it is unquestionably WP:NPOV where we are all enjoined to "prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject... Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." That covers inflammatory words from a jealous competitor. If Elton John had specific criticisms about Madonna, we could add them, or we could say he was critical. However, his bitchy words are not appropriate because they are not presented in a "disinterested tone." Rather, they are presented to inflame the reader. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You will notice that I used the WP:NPOV link myself above, which as I am sure you will be aware, quotes the following: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopaedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Elton Johns opinions, worded uniquely admittedly, are criticisms that he has publicly stated, repeatedly and so by definition are valid, attributable and sourced and so should be quoted in full in an unbiased encyclopaedia such as Wiki, even if it does offend the dedicated fan. To define them as "bitchy comments" is in-itself a POV! I think that you will find that "disinterested tone" refers to the general tone of the article, not to individual, attributable quotes. Incidentally, on a very minor point, I really cannot see that Sir Elton is in anyway a "jealous competitor" of Madonna. They fill different markets and only have a very small cross-over, I would suggest. Manxwoman (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
All I can say to you at this point is that Elton John's comments are not neutrally worded; they are inflammatory. I will remove them each time they appear in the article. I will cite NPOV and BLP as the reasons, and I will welcome any urge you have to take the issue to higher authority. I do not think you will find many supporters for your position, not very many who think Elton calling Madonna a "cunt" and a "fairground stripper" is somehow encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I do hope that you will be decent enough to acknowledge that I did not include the word "cunt" in the edit I inserted. I used (expletive) instead. That said, Eltons quote was undoubtedly inflammatory, which is most likely why he said it and as such is fair comment from a professional contemporary. It is not per se grounds for removal. Much more worrying is your assertion that "I will remove them each time they appear in the article". I am sure you are aware that no one editor 'owns' any article on Wiki. Just because you disapprove, or disagree, or dislike a sourced quote/attitude about the subject matter, is not grounds for removal of a contradictory edit that may or may not equalise the general tone of the article. I note your comments in the consensus section above, agreeing to someone else editing the article, but I suggest that the fact that you do not see that the article " is all that far from neutral" is the main problem. Manxwoman (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
My familiarity with the BLP guideline as it is applied in practice gives me the confidence that any removal of mine of inflammatory wording is going to be supported by the regulars at WP:BLPN. That's why I am confident in saying I will always remove such wording. That's all I have to say on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wiki rule I was searching for is: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Manxwoman (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Ownership is not the same as the resolve to keep an article from violating BLP and NPOV. I would have no problem of you adding something about how Madonna has received well thought-out criticism from scholarly sources, culture mavens or music critics. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, WP:OWN clearly states in subsection WP:OAS: "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly." A number of editors, self-professed fans and not have worked on this article over a great deal of time, which was at one point also featured for a good length of time. Referring to the long-time stewards as a "cabal" is highly insulting and I would not recommend carrying that attitude to other articles you may choose to edit. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue of parity of sources has been well addressed by another editor above and given some of the sources quoted frequently (Entertainment Weekly & VH1 etc), I am not sure at what scholastic level THEY cut in on! I'm sad that you have still not acknowledged my previous point that I did not use swearwords in the edit I inserted, but I really do not wish to get into a slanging match with an editor about this pop singer. She's really not worth it. I have made my point and other editors have agreed and the unbridled eulogy is being addressed. Thats sufficient. Manxwoman (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Entertainment Weekly, and VH1 are also music sources (with critics devoted entirely to critiquing music and music related subjects - tours, concerts, music videos etc). A great deal of album reviews come from EW, not different than Rolling Stone or Allmusic. The point is, praise AND criticism from these sources come from music professionals, in the same way major news media such as LA TIMES, NY Times or CNN have professional music critics on staff and usually a column dedicated to the music industry. The reason we have declined to use contemporary rivals is because they are just that, rivals, not professional music critics; their POV gives them an inherent bias and as I stated below, its much more crucial for the neutrality of an article to address criticisms from scholarly (either in academia or from specialized music publications) sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned below, when this article went through FAC, it passed with relative ease and the subject of neutrality never came up, nor did anyone insist on adding more criticism just for the sake of doing so. The article was demoted, not due to neutrality or prose, but for User:Legolas2186 falsifying sources. One consensus several editors and I came to over the course of working on this article is that given the sheer wealth of academic material published on Madonna (meaning numerous exceptional sources from journalists, music experts and other professional critics) it's entirely un-encyclopedic to reply on the opinions of her contemporary rivals to present a balanced view of her biography or career. I am by no means a Madonna devotee, but if I'm going to read a well documented, quality entry on her life, I could care less what other musicians have to say about her when there is plenty of academic scrutiny concerning her life and career. To be clear, I'm not saying the article in it's current form is perfect, but at the same time, if there is such an outcry for statements or information concerning her detractors, there is a wide, wide variety of material better suited for an encyclopedia that the off-hand remarks of Elton John. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_13&oldid=1090568688"