Talk:Madonna/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Another Adoption

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/02/earlyshow/main4986342.shtml a reliable source. Since there was a previous section to a similar incident, it might be worth covering.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Revolver?

Please make an article about new single Revolver and Greatest Hits 3! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.249.9 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources (no fan sites or dubious websites). — R2 09:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Johnnyboytoy (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

I have added heavily sourced information which has been removed.

these sources reveal who she lost her virginity to: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010204/ai_n14524253/pg_4 http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0054522/

They are reliable. It should be kept. Why is it relevant to list unknown people such as Andy Bird who she dated, but not the man who took her virginity? He is just as important as the other people mentioned.

Another source if from an interview with Madonna's former roommate. Madonna told her that she was raped by a strabger when she was 18. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010204/ai_n14524253/pg_7/?tag=content;col1

this source is yahoo, very reliable. it says that while separated from sean penn, she had relationships with JFK jr and Sandra Bernhard: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800038606/bio


Please recognize the significance of these facts and sources. I have written about this on the discussion page as requested. I will re-add the information unless someone can give me a legitimate reason why not too.Excuseme99 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:SOURCES: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[nb 1] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.
  • WP:REDFLAG: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
    surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
    reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • WP:HARM: Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity. In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; an inclusion test can be applied in these instances.
    All sources mentioned fail exceptional claims. That coupled with WP:REDFLAG and WP:HARM are why these insignificant sources have no clout on wikipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


To confirm what Bookkeeper has said, Sunday Mirror is a tabloid and completely unacceptable as a source. IMDb has no editorial oversight (except for cast lists) and thus an unreliable source. And the article from Yahoo mentions a "rumored affair" with Bernhard. The issue of JFK, Jr. has been discussed previously with a consensus that it is not notable enough to be included ("brief" relationship could be as simple as having a cup of coffee together). In short, what you want to add is a bunch of tabloid trash or trivial details, and that doesn't fly on Wikipedia. One more point: I would strongly recommend against adding the material to the article again without consensus, because you can get blocked for that. Ward3001 (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can't argue anymore to post information about Sandra. But what about Andrew Morton's biography? What about Ingrid Caesars?

Also, the article that talks about the man she lost her virginity to is IMDB and another is an interview from the man himself. IMDB has her own quote saying who she lost her virginity to. Why do you not find that reliable?Excuseme99 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is being reported through IMDb. If she had a statement in exceptional high-quality sources such as CNN, it might be acceptable, however, even then we have WP:UNDUE. Is the person she lost her virginity to critical to an understanding of her biography from an encyclopedic perspective? No, its not. To reiterate WP:HARM: In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. There is no point in adding such information. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it any more important to mention a porn star that she dated? or a DJ? or an unknown man who told a tabliod about their romance? when all of these were just brief flings, how can they be critical to the article but the man whom she lost her virginity to is not?Excuseme99 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a strong advocate against any kind of personal life sections (See my work/opinions at Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Alicia Keys, Rihanna etc). Madonna does not need a personal life section giving mention to ANYONE she has dated other than her husbands who have been heavily involved in her work/public life. As with ther other articles I've mentioned, I'd advise listing her entire biography in chronological order rather than separating working life from personal life. I've tried this before, but this article is overwhelmed by WP:FANCRUFT editors who want to ignore all encyclopedic representation of her life. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The DJ and the porn star are not relevant either, and I agree with every bit of Bookkeeper's comment. You're using an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions" - it's kind of like saying two wrongs make a right. You don't add something inappropriate and justify it by pointing at something else that is inappropriate. Rossrs (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You forgot . . .

. . to mention that she kept the money from Pepsi.=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.248.163 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And you forgot to give any clue as to what you're talking about. Ward3001 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Touché!

Thanks for the chuckle, Ward3001! <grin> LA Movie Buff (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Times source confirming who Madonna lost her virginity to

here it is. you can't argue with its reliability http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/18/arts/critic-s-notebook-in-celebrity-biographies-more-is-less.html

By the way, this link (http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0054522) is reliable because it is not an imdb essay, it is a published report on the website.

you may not consider these sites reliable but they are here. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010204/ai_n14524253/pg_4 http://www.linkedcelebs.com/page/Madonna?t=anon

Excuseme99 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? Wikipedia is not a gutter gossip magazine, WP:BLP applies here and such salatious and invasive trivia should never even be considered for a biographic entry. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. As stated in the above section Per WP:UNDUE a single sentence about her first sex partner is not encyclopedia worthy. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. Excuseme99, you don't seem to be grasping something that Bookkeeper (and I to a lesser extent) has been saying. Something can have a reliable source and still not be notable or within the guidelines of WP:BLP. Bookkeeper and I consider this little tidbit of gossip to be non-notable. If you wish to add this "taker-of-virginity" trivia to the article, then please wait and see if a consensus emerges here to do so. You may not like it, but that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. You alone do not determine consensus on this issue. And secondly, just because IMDb calls something an essay does not make it reliable. IMDb as a whole (except for cast and crew lists) is considered unreliable on Wikipedia. Now, I for one don't intend to argue endlessly with you on matters that are governed by the basic Wikipedia policies of consensus, notability, BLP, and reliability of sources. Let's see if anyone else expresses an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This is the same sort of thing that Excuseme99 is doing across a large number of articles - bucking consensus, making POV, non-neutral and irrelevant changes to articles repeatedly without paying the least objections by multiple editors. It is growing beyond tiresome and I believe we are fast approaching a point where WP:AN/I will need to be used to try and avert this before it gets any worse. There is a decided lack of collaboration and a high degree of WP:OWN at work here. It needs to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Excuseme99 - you seem to have the impression that just because you provide a source (let's step away for a moment from the discussion about what is reliable and what is not reliable) that it is OK to include anything you wish to include. It is not. You've been doing the same thing on other articles. You are not critically looking at the usefulness or value of the information you are seeking to include. You are not weighing it against WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:HARM or WP:N. You are not working within WP:CONSENSUS. All you are doing is saying that you have a piece of information you want to add and you have a source. You seem to be completely missing the point that several editors are consistently making on the talk pages of several articles. You need to read what people are saying, read some policies and guidelines that people keep directing you to and accept that other editors are going to work within those guidelines. Rossrs (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete joke, if Excuseme99 does not stop this nonsense I am going to get a few admins involved with this. — R2 12:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since User talk:Excuseme99 Does not seem to actually read anyones post but his own, I'll copy and paste exactly what User:Rossrs and I stated two sections up a few days ago:
  • I'm actually a strong advocate against any kind of personal life sections (See my work/opinions at Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Alicia Keys, Rihanna etc). Madonna does not need a personal life section giving mention to ANYONE she has dated other than her husbands who have been heavily involved in her work/public life. As with ther other articles I've mentioned, I'd advise listing her entire biography in chronological order rather than separating working life from personal life. I've tried this before, but this article is overwhelmed by WP:FANCRUFT editors who want to ignore all encyclopedic representation of her life. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The DJ and the porn star are not relevant either, and I agree with every bit of Bookkeeper's comment. You're using an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions" - it's kind of like saying two wrongs make a right. You don't add something inappropriate and justify it by pointing at something else that is inappropriate. Rossrs (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That should be enough to answer you question. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal life GONE?!?!?!

you are taking this out of control. i'm not saying we have to list every fling and one-night-stand she had, but how about her 2 husbands and her most significant (meaning lasting over a year) relationships (dan gilroy, jellybean benitez, warren beatty, carlos leon, jesus luz) ????Excuseme99 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the "personal life" is not "GONE". The section has been merged into the article in a similar manner to featured articles such as Janet Jackson. The important people are still there, and discussed within the context of the time period that they were in Madonna's life/career. Gilroy, Benitez, Beatty, Leon, Luz - and more, are all represented. Perfectly acceptable way of doing it. You did read the article, didn't you? Rossrs (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I wouldn't complain about the article when you 1) attempt to strip the basic human dignity of living people and 2) neglect to even read the article when major changes are put in place. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review and push for FA

Great thanks to User:Legolas2186 for getting the ball rolling. I feel confident about taking this article to peer review now, as long as several productive editors are involved.

  • WP:LEAD: The lead of this article is still very jagged and does not present a very well written introduction to the subject. The last paragraph is very WP:PEACOCKISH and should be trimmed down to the bare essentials.
  • The Body: Madonna's adoptions and religious/political views should also be merged into the main biography: These do not need WP:UNDUE weight as she is neither a politician nor a religious leader. The musical style section needs to be refined.
  • General clean up: I suspect the article currently has a lot of unnecessary detail that can be moved to more appropriate album or single articles.

I need to give the article a serious read. I'll have to time this weekend and then I'd like to put it up for Peer Review. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with your point that the religio-politico views and adoptions can easily be merged in the main article. However I wanted to have a consensus regarding this hence didnot move it. The LEAD needs serious restructuring and removal of PEACOCK language untill its sourced by an extremely RS. About the musical style, it really doesnot have much information regarding the musical style rather than influences. I think consulting books and biographies will be better to add more info. There should be a "Notes" section to list the books used for reference. Clearing all these things up, we can surely push it for FA. Cheers! --Legolas (talk2me) 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Legolas2186 has done a great job so far. I'll go through this in more detail, but these are a couple of very quick observations.
  • WP:LEAD is long and yet musically it ends in 1998, so 11 of her over more than 25 years are not covered. The whole thing needs to be trimmed back but also equal coverage needs to be given to the whole span of the article. The last paragraph appears excessive, again this can be trimmed, bearing in mind that further detail can and should be given in the article.
  • Personal life - merged into the article. I strongly support this and I feel that it allows for an easier flow, and for these points to be made in context. I think we need to double and triple check these points for any WP:BLP concerns, ensure that appropriate coverage is given to each of the important people and no more than necessary.
  • Influences - the section about who/what influenced Madonna is interesting, relevant and generally well done. I think given her stature and the duration of her career, we should also show the other side of the coin, namely who has been influenced by her.
  • Legacy - this is the only part of the article that I find unconvincing. The points are not made with great conviction. If she's credited with broadening people's minds about bisexuality, it needs a little expansion or explanation, for example. The half paragraph about her Catholicism and having Rocco baptized in a Presbyterian Church - I don't think it's clear why this is under "Legacy". The sequencing puzzles me, because it discusses bisexuality, then religion, then sexuality.

These are just a few, very quick and somewhat random observations. I certainly think it deserves several editors going through everything very carefully. The basics are well and truly in place. Rossrs (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the sections on Kabbalah and Adoptions into the main prose of the article. Hence the article now has three main prose namely Biography, Musical style and influences and Legacy. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea folks! Will try and help. — R2 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given a rewrite to the lead. Far from perfect, it still lacks a good overview of her filmography and her contribution to numerous soundtracks, as well as other ventures, but we can all work together to include proper coverage. Just try to remember to keep the introduction in chronological order rather than grouping segments of information together. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good Book. I'll work on it more after returning. --Legolas (talk2me) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, much better. The lead should try to covey her ability to reinvent herself. — R2 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The lead looks much improved. I love that you've included MTV. It's such an obviously important connection and I don't think anyone's made it in the lead before. I'm also glad that the Vatican and Maverick Records get a mention. My only concern is that her global explosion seems to be resting on True Blue, and I disagree with that. She really exploded in 1985-1986, initially via Like a Virgin and all its hit singles, the movie Desperately Seeking Susan, and additionally the singles "Into the Groove", "Crazy for You" and "Live To Tell", plus millions of kids imitated her fashion. I'm not suggesting that all of these things should be mentioned, but it is the sum total of these things, rather than just True Blue that made her "explode" (and MTV was the vehicle). She could have released just about anything in mid 1986 and it would have been a hit because she had created such anticipation. I'm showing my age here, but I remember stopping my car to hear "Papa Don't Preach" for the first time on the radio, because there had been such a build up of "what will she do next?" I didn't care what she was going to do - I wanted to hear it no matter what, and I think that was the general feeling then among her fans. That she released something as topical as "Papa Don't Preach" may have been good luck or it may have been extremely clever - it was exactly the right choice, but it couldn't do anything but succeed because of the incredible momentum she had created. The other singles from True Blue just kind of followed. None of the songs were particularly ground-breaking (although the videos were), but by that point, it was more about Madonna than anything in particular that she did. I say all this admitting that a lot of it is my own perspective, but just so you know where I'm coming from. I would maybe change it to something like "By 1986, the success of several hit singles, the film Desperately Seeking Susan, and the albums, Like a Virgin and True Blue had brought her global recognition as a pop icon, notable for pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in popular music and in music videos which became a fixture on MTV." Not perfect, but I think that little bit of expansion and extra detail makes the picture more complete. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've given it a slight tweak. I'm not a Madonna expert, but with more info I think I can continue to improve the lead. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. That was the little extra, that (IMO) it needed. Rossrs (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
We should also ensure that what is written in the lead is also included (and sourced) in the article body. I haven't read the article in it's entirety for several months, so I'll have to get around to that :) — R2 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A question : is the Sex book "pornographic" per the lead? Sexually explicit, no doubt about it, but the images are all posed. They're highly suggestive but it's more a question of nudity and illusion. It's more Bettie Page than (insert name of your favorite porn star here). Pornographic seems to me to be a very strong word. Any thoughts on this? Rossrs (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the article Sex (book) it contains, "strong adult content and softcore pornographic photographs depicting simulations of sexual acts, which included homosexuality, sadomasochism, and anilingus". Regardless, we need third party coverage, how are the media labeling it? — R2 12:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
True. The article is completely unsourced and that doesn't help, and we need third party coverage. There is a selection of images here and to my eyes they look like a bunch of poses that would qualify as erotica rather than pornography, but that's just my opinion. It just doesn't look like anything much was happening either before or after the second the camera clicked, because the poses are just too artificial. From memory, the media was fairly divided but it needs some investigation. Our article uses the description "sexually provocative and explicit images" which seems to me to be both accurate and neutral, especially if the lead is summarizing from the article - nowhere in the article do we call it pornographic, and that has a more negative connotation anyway. One of the sources here calls it "risque", Madonna's intro to the book says "Everything you are about to see and read is a fantasy, a dream, pretend" (I knew it! It's all fake!) and Time is quoted as calling it "soft-porn". New York Times review says : "Unfortunately, not many of the images are very good photographically. Many are just pictures, or just porn, either too artificial or what would be too ordinary if the subject matter -- how shall I put this -- if such extravagant efforts had not been made to achieve high-class calendar art." Further in the article it says, "Penthouse, for instance, is a lot more explicit." I bet it's been a whole lot of things by different people, but will keep looking. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is overwhelming consensus amongst the sources we should keep the tone moderate. The arguments for and against it being "pornographic" can be thrashed out over at Sex (book). — R2 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don't want to debate it here, and that's not what I was aiming to do, but I think I may have started.... Well, the WP:LEAD should summarize the article so to call it "pornographic" in the lead and then say it contains "sexually provocative and explicit images" in the article body where it is being amplified, isn't consistent. Why don't we drop that one word - "pornographic" - completely? The sentence would work fine without it, and it already uses the lead in "sexually explicit material" and there is no description for Body of Evidence. The sexually explicit material is obviously relating to both works, and "pornographic" could be used to describe the film with (almost) the same justification. Rossrs (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We donot need to over emphasize it if its not mentioned in the article body. By the way, we need to restructure the legacy section I think. The prose doesnot flow well. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure Rossrs, I agree. — R2 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About Greatest Hits 3

http://www.attitude.co.uk/viewblog.aspx?blogid=1474&viewuserid=1d17547e-17b6-4271-8b20-f3eb845a65d0

Attitude has some information about new Greatest Hits. In an interview Oakenfold confirmed that new songs will be named "Broken", "I'm Sorry" and "Celebrate". And there will be fourth new song by Frank E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.249.9 (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry please check the link because it doesnot show the information. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloated articles

weren't the prime years of madonna's career in the 1980s? she hasn't come close to selling as many records in recent years like she did in the 80s. so why is there hardly any info in the 80s articles, but tons of information under the more recent articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothere13 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lot of WP:RECENTISM in Wikipedia. That said, sales alone should don't determine how much detail an article warrants. — R2 20:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is way too much information. There is three time as much written in the "2007-present" article than in any of the 80s articles. Is it really necessary to write a paragraph about a photoshoot she did for some catalog? or list that she supports Hilary Clinton, when there is no mention who she voted for in the 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothere13 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the 21st century stuff, particularly the 2007-present section suffers undue weight. We will trim it as we push for WP:FA. — R2 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Did some trimming. Realist just have a look. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a good start, nothing to object to there. — R2 13:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Shall we submit for a PR? --Legolas (talk2me) 10:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need yet, there is still plenty we can do to improve the article, we should go to PR when we are stuck for ideas. — Please comment R2 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Madonna & Tupac Shakur's love child? -- Questionable reference

The 1992-1996 section states: That same year she began dating rap artist Tupac Shakur, who she wanted to have a child with. The two would continue to date through that year into 1995 during his incarceration and it gives as reference a [New York Daily News gossip column story] which quotes Lucy O'Brien's book, "Madonna: Like an Icon," stating: Madonna, in her mid-30s, "desperately wanted children and had various relationships with unlikely men." The singer's friend Alison Clarkson recalls when she was briefly dating Tupac Shakur, one year before his death. "She was going out with him ... but homegirls were saying to him, 'I can't believe you're going out with a white girl,'" - so she got dumped!. Connecting "desperatly wanting children" with "having various relationships with unlikely men" to conclude that she wanted a child with one particular partner appears to be innuendo and supposition. Is there any better reference or should this be removed? (The same reference is also used to support this claim in the Tupac Shakur article.) -- Thinking of England (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mononymity: Madonna (Ciccone) vs. Beyonce (Knowles)
vs. Jackee (Harry)?

Okay, so I edit this article so that it matches with Beyonce Knowles', which I was then planning on doing to Jackee Harry's because I like the wording format in Beyonce's article. Fair enough plan, right? Apparently "not," according to this "Bookkeeper" person, because then later she/he comes in and reverts it, giving me this: "Due to the ambiguity of her current last name, we reached consensus to introduce her this way."

"Ambiguity," huh? What's so "ambiguous" about it? Why is this supposedly "different" from how Beyonce is known--usually only called by her first name, but still introduced in the 'pedia with "best known mononymously as Beyoncé"? What's the supposed "difference" between knowing Ms. Ciccone publicly by only her first name and knowing Ms. Knowles publicly by only her first name? What supposedly makes Ciccone "more ambiguous," according to Bookkeeper, than Knowles, so much that it was supposedly "better" to introduce them differently? Why "can't we" just introduce Ciccone the same way as we introduce Knowles?

"Maxx Fordham"

Because Madonna was married for quite some time, and her legal last name has been Ritchie (her now-ex-husband's last name) for a number of years. We have no way of knowing if she decided to keep the last name Ritchie after her recent divorce (as many women do since changing one's name requires an extensive amount of paperwork: social security, credit cards, deeds, trusts, wills etc.) or had it legally changed back to her maiden name Ciccone. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Fair enough, then. Thanks for making the effort to explain, to fill in my curiosity.


wouldn't the difference be that Madonna entered public life as Madonna, whereas Beyonce first came out as Beyonce Knowles and only dropped using her last name she got to high levels of fame. Same could be said for Kylie Minogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.54.58 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen of Pop gone again...

LOL! I haven't read the full intro in months and noticed it's gone again. I guess editors feel it's pride or glorification, even though it's just a simple fact (à la Michael and Elvis). I honestly don't see any 'pride' in it and I don't think anyone should.

Madonna was also inducted in the UK Music Hall of Fame and holds the record for the top-grossing tour by a female artist ever (Stick & Sweet).

If editors decide on adding the QOP statement and one or more of the others to the intro, go ahead.

I like all the other changes that were made to the intro, though. Good work! Israell (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote much of the lead and I switched QOP to the Legacy section instead where its a bit more justified. There is already a lot of glorification (though well deserved) in the intro. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It may not be a question of "pride" or of "glorification". With someone like Madonna there are so many things that could be said about her, and there is only so much that can go in the lead, especially considering that the purpose of the lead is to provide an adequate and balanced summary of the article, rather than a list of achievements. Madonna's achievements are formidable, and I can't imagine anyone disputing that. The other thing to consider is that Bookkeeper's inclusion in the legacy section allows the term to be attributed, discussed, and given context, something that was never possible in the lead section without placing undue emphasis upon it. Rossrs (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed "Queen of Pop" from the first sentence. WP:LEAD says that the first sentence is to establish notability. Madonna is notable as a singer, dancer, performer etc. She is not notable for being called "Queen of Pop". This is a tag that has been given her by some as a result of her notability, and while it may be fairly widespread, it is not universal, is not defining and does not reflect anything more than a point of view, regardless of how widely that point of view is held. In the first sentence it has no meaning and no context, and therefore creates a problem of WP:UNDUE. For these reasons, it just does not belong there. In the "Legacy" section it is given due acknowledgement, is placed within context and attributed to WP:RS. It's been done very well. Also - I can't not say this - if we ever reach the point where we are following the lead of PerezHilton.com or using his website to support our content choices here, that's the time Wikipedia needs to be terminated. Rossrs (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Bravo! KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Kabbalah?

There is no longer any reference to her beliefs in Kabbalah on her page! I searched the article for the word, and not a single mention of it came up. What happened? I think this is pretty crucial to her entry, considering it comprises part of her beliefs and this article is also sorted under mid-level importance Kabbalah articles! 75.119.235.146 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Should come under influences. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it have a separate section (as it used to, until merged by Legolas2186). She's done a lot to make Kabbalah better known; it's not just a one-way street.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
All mention of Kabbalah disappeared with this edit. However, there's some Kabbalah references in the html code for the page. I think someone may have inadvertently hidden it....or actually deliberately hidden it (!) with <-- marks -->, which is the case. I think there has been an attempt to cover up her Kabbalah activities - either by a fan or by someone involved in Kabbalah who doesn't want her association.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is anything like that. However, I believe if such a section exists then it should be moved to the influences section. She is influenced by Kabbalah, not the other way round. And she really hasn't done that much to promote the religion, it was already there on the map due to its pursuing by other celebrities. But maybe it is true that Madonna joining the religion gave it a more prominence. I'll try to find some link about it. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I"ve just found that the user responsible for hiding negative comments about Madonna's connections to Kabbalah was User:Legolas2186. This is in addition to merging the original sections on Kabbalah into other text making her involvement less clear. I've got to be honest Legolas, but it doesn't look like a couple good faith edits, particularly the way that the comments about Kabbalah were hidden rather than outright deleted, something you appear to have forgotten doing. Hiding comments isn't so clear in a diff comparison, and may have slipped past editors checking the changes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Merging everything including Kabbalah, personal life and Political views were done as per consensus from previous discussion. No one else objected. As for the hiding, I just go and see why I did that. There must be a reason. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Which discussion was that? There's nothing on merging Kabbalah in the archives. I'd be grateful if you could point out where.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I see - you mean the clear-up and general chronological structure. It still looks like me that clear-up was used as an opportunity to get rid of references to Kabbalah.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)You are deluded then. The section is back up with proper referencing. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Look. All references to Kabbalah have been taken out by open fans of Madonna (per user pages). If you look at the archives, it's happened before, and was labelled vandalism then. There was no consensus to remove the material, only to merge it. The thing is, if the person merges it then decides it's unencyclopaedic where they themselves put it and then edits out that material in an unusual manner (hiding rather than deleting), is it so shocking that suspicions are raised?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the material back in, and in a more readable form than recent versions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Prose flow

We have all made wonderful changes to the article and it is more FA worthy than before. However I still believe that the prose needs to flow together as a single piece of biographic article rather than blocks of information as it is now. I will be working on it to improve. Others please share your inputs also. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

References/phrasing for opening section

A couple of things: The sentence establishing her as a pop icon for pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos needs to be referenced either there or in the Like A Virgin section - RS stating such. (I'm sure it exists, but wouldn't know where to look.)

This sentence I think has things backwards: She also gained recognition for her role in the film Desperately Seeking Susan (1985). She didn't win awards for her role (although Arquette did and the film was well-received); as far as I can see the film actually achieved recognition because of Madonna (note her higher billing than the main actress) rather than the other way around. As an analogy, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pepsi commercials increased her recognition. Of course, the film no doubt increased her visibility though and was part of the original Madonna myth; I'm just not sure how the sentence could be re-phrased.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to tweak it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Islamic rabbi

However, her immersion in Kabbalah caused a furor and she faced opposition from Islamic Rabbis There aren't any islamic rabbis, a rabbi is always jewish, it's a self evident truth. As a muslim I would really appreciate if someone could correct this sentence. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.250.96.97 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Middle name Veronica

Just wondered where her second middle name Veronica came from, is appears to not be a birth name according to the article. It says also known as.... I've read her name in other places before with and without Veronica, but with no explaination. Carlwev (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Remedios Varo

This article features a painting by Remedios Varo, and the tag below this images uses the male pronoun "his." Varo was a female painter. Will someone with editing privileges please fix this error? Thank you in advance. 68.174.95.3 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

To see why this does not generally lead to wp:BALANCE consider if the article began with "Madonna is a much criticized singer..." and went downhill from there... then, a single section titled something like "positive reviews" where anything good was allowed to be posted.

The criticisms should be in the bits of the article to which they relate, with their sources, in very general.- sinneed (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially if the criticism section is like the one recently inserted. It was poorly sourced, and didn't actually lend much understanding to the nature and context of the criticisms, just that some people don't rate her and she's pissed off the vatican. It's much better to have the criticisms in the sections that they correspond to.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That said, the Legacy section is curiously absent of criticism of her overall musical value and ability, when such criticism exists. Perhaps someone wants to put the stuff by Joni Mitchell etc. somewhere in there? At the moment "she bestrides the cultural world like a colossus" wouldn't be out of place in the text as it stands.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This article reads more like a fan page than an objective article about the subject. That Joni Mitchell quotation, for instance, absolutely needs to stay. If you want to incorporate it into other parts of the article, that is fine. But simply deleting all of the material in the "Criticism" sesction is actually a form of vandalism, since other people put a lot of work into documenting this with valid references. Boab (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see wp:criticism. That should answer your querries. --Legolas (talk2me) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The word "criticism" should not have an exclusively negative connotation, and yet its application in this context is entirely negative. Criticism can be positive, negative and all the shades in between, but the section only discussed negative things. It's a carefully chosen shopping list of complaints thrown randomly into one section where they do not connect to the main part of the article. It creates imbalance because it allows for anything negative, whether important or trivial, to be inserted, and I would be just as concerned if we had a section called "Praise". Some of the points are worthwhile. For example, Joni Mitchell's comment is valuable. On the other hand, "Other popular entertainers like Janet Jackson, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey[citation needed] have expressed disapproval of her artistic abilities, disdain, or criticism against her image and work." is rubbish. It's not cited and it's vague. They disapprove? Madonna probably disapproves of them too. Why do they disapprove? What do they say? It has no value at all. The comments about the Pope and the Vatican are fine, but they are already in the article, in an abbreviated form. It's just repeating what is already stated twice in the article. Then there is "However,she is a keen sports woman herself and often works out in the gym and does training runs, and is believed to have run several times in the British 10K,a central London charity race held near to where she owns a large house." It has nothing to do with any kind of critical commentary. Copying and pasting content that has been intentionally removed is never a good idea, because it returns the bad and the good,and it dismisses the intention of the editors who chose to remove it. It's unfair to call removal of the section a kind of vandalism. I could say the same about returning it, but name-calling is not going to help anybody. The amount of time other editors put into creating it is not relevant. The only consideration is the value of material itself. Why not identify the important parts and integrate them into the article? Rossrs (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Boab, I think you need reminding to act in good faith. First of all, your edit note says no reasons were given for removing what you put in, when this was simply not true. You were directed to the talk page in the edit summary removing your edits to see the reasons for doing so. Secondly, it's been stated already buy a couple of us where criticisms should be placed; no one has said they shouldn't be in the article at all. Please don't imply that people have said this. Criticisms simply need to be put in those sections that the criticisms apply to. For example, the vatican's complaints apply to specific tours, while Joni Mitchell's complaints perhaps apply to her legacy. (although I haven't checked the context/year where Joni Mitchell made her comments, but it's worth doing so in case we misrepresent Mitchell's view of Madonna now.) As I stated above, I agree that parts of the article read too much like fandom. The solution is to make them read more neutrally, not to add in a "who hates Madonna" addendum at the end. Please feel free to add (properly sourced) criticisms throughout the article. I hope it's clear now that there is a consensus that this is the way to balance the article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out the legacy section starts off with "Rodger Streitmatter reported in his book Sex Sells! (2004) that "from the moment Madonna burst onto the nation's radar screen in the mid-1980s, she did everything in her power to shock the public, and her efforts paid off".[200] He further commented, "The reigning Queen of Pop thrived on the criticism, and continued, throughout the decade, to reiterate the most fundamental of her issues by consistently celebrating women's sexual power." It may not be in depth, but it can always be expanded. Madonna has made her criticisms a large part of her public persona. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly a quote in support of Madonna. It's an example of why the article feels a little unencyclopaedic. The trick is to keep the liveliness of that kind of material without what for at least the non-Madonna fans here is an overall impression of gush.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My point is that even with legitimate criticism of her talent, she turned around and use them to support her public persona - Most notably her religious and sexual themes. The musical style section should discuss her singing/songwriting criticisms while the legacy could discuss how her negative publicity actually did end up working to her advantage. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sory, but Wikipedia is not the place to buff up someone's image. In no way should an article be deliberately structured to show someone in either a good or a bad light. You might need to revisit WP:NPOV, in particular WP:STRUCTURE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You've taken what I've said completely out of context. I'm not trying to "puff up" Madonna's image: rather I am making a point that its a fact of academic/critical commentary that she did that herself by using negative publicity in order to make herself look like a rebel and therefore appealing to non-conformers. An example:

In embracing pop discourse, rather than rock, Madonna's eroticized images expose images as artifice and play on the negative connotations attached to women. Some of the controversy Madonna generates has to do with her pop reproduction of the lowest form of aesthetic culture, her commercialism, and the presumably formulaic, and trivial pop music she produces. It is, however, largely because she plays on "people's idea of what is humiliating to women" that Madonna has become a controversial figure in academic and popular discourse. Madonna enters the cultural scene following both the 1970s Women's Liberation movement and the 1980s industrialization of academic feminism and provokes debates about not just "postmodernism" but "postfeminism" as well.

—A. Metz, Carol Benson, The Madonna Companion P. 276

You can look though my entire editing history to see that I adhere strictly to WP:NPOV, especially when its concerns WP:BLP. That includes acknowledging what is verifiable. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Having managed to unpick the information in the legacy section, I now see what you were trying to say, and apologise for being so direct. I still disagree with it as something encyclopaedic to say -at least in the way you've been phrasing it. The quotation you cite does not mean that she has turned criticism around to her benefit; it is that she has used paradoxes and contradictions within feminism and within the commodifying processes of pop music to her advantage. Turning a criticism to a benefit would be making herself, for example, stronger by using criticism of Body of Evidence. What the quotation mentions is controversy, not criticism as such. The way you've phrased it, it sounds like she's been knocked down and got back up again to fight, which I think is a misrepresentation of the sources you quote.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and your concerns Vsevolod, but what Book is saying is correct in this case. Her criticisms were infact turned aorund to suit herself, and that's not fancruft or Undue balance on the article's part. This is what happened. Book knows about this very well and his point is well-justified. And the article doesnot "buff" up Madonna's image. It reflects on it from the critics point of view only. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hold on. I think I've identified what's wrong with the legacy section. It's structured according to sources, (rather like - sorry - a first year undergrad essay), and not according to topics/ideas. This is why to the non-Madonnaite it looks like a jumble of praise, while to fans (who have this information structured in their heads) it all just appears true. It needs to be organised into different themes (not with headings, the paragraphing can do the work). Success (measured by numbers), influence on younger female artists, femininist/post-feminist icon, the nature of her reinventions and so on. At the moment the first paragraph begins with a comparison to Bowie, goes through her shock tactics, her business acumen and ends with what it should start with, the Rolling Stone quote. Other material relating to each of these topics is spread over the next few paragraphs. It's really important to organise these analytical sections, as otherwise it's very difficult for people outside the Madonnaverse to edit it for quality and help it back to good article status. I can make a start, to show what I mean, if there are no objections. I promise not to take anything out, unless I can't find a place for it, in which case I'll bring it here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can start. What you proposed definitely sounds good and promising. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've taken out the Cross reference to the Queen of pop in the mid-1980s, as this is legacy, not beginning of career. I took out the stuff about Madonna Studies considering her role as a commodity; it should go back in somewhere, but expanded. That plant is still in, but I'd seriously recommend taking it out from legacy. It's not what she's notable for. Perhaps someone could put it where it would fit better.
The main thing to say now is that it's clear where material is lacking - her business achievements and more sourcing on her reinvention. So right now it may look a little worse than before, I believe it's in a better position to be improved.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I don't think Rosanna Arquette's BAFTA belongs in the lead. The lead should focus on Madonna. Rossrs (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out. I just want to get rid of the impression that people appreciating her appearance in Desperately Seeking Susan was somehow an important step on her way to stardom; she was already famous enough for it to overwhelm the film's other publicity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What you did Vsevolod looks fine, however you undid one change of mine previously. That was simply inserting an unsourced fact in the lead regarding the billing. I tried searching for this fact in books and websites, but couldnot find anyting reliable. :( --Legolas (talk2me) 04:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the section on the movie that needs expanding and refs, but in a short while I'll have time to add those. Look on google books for DSS Madonna and "vehicle", and it comes up.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Refs are in now. I think I was probably unjustified originally to write that Madonna had higher billing (sources are not clear on this), but I've linked to a (very RS) ref that is one of many that note the film became seen as a vehicle for Madonna. The Arquette supporting actress BAFTA is odd given Arquette's main role, but I can't find an RS that makes the link between the vehicularity of the film and Arquette's effective demotion; making the link would be WP:OR#SYNTH. (I actually took it from the Desperately Seeking Susan article presuming it was sourced somewhere, if anyone feels like tidying that up.) I found a couple of oblique references to tension between Arquette and Madonna; if anyone can source more (especially if it was more than just a personality clash, but studio politics), it could go in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No need of adding tensions btw Madonna and Arquette. This will be completely undue emphasis. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why a brief mention is completely undue (do you mean "probably"?). I actually don't have access to information about it; the snippets I could get out of google books suggested that it might be due to the issue of Madonna's fame overwhelming the coverage of what was originally Arquette's film - which is arguably on topic. As I said, I couldn't get into the books in depth on line, so I asked if others knew more.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No I believe it will be undue only. Its probably for the film article but not for the bio. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you know the details about it? As I said, I can't get access to references to it. It would be easier to discuss if the information were out in the open. (I don't dispute that you may be entirely right about UNDUE...)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Actually I read about it in the biography of Madonna by Taraborrelli. But now that page has become locked for me in Google. The problem was that Madonna, then a new actress, was being given the same billing in the movie as Arquette, who was senior to her (in acting terms). Also, the wardrobe and wacky sense that the character of Susan portrayed was Madonna's own sense of style. The director decided to incorporate her ideas rather than Arquette's. Hence this led to the tension. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this then, if we can confirm the source: "She also appeared in the comedy Desperately Seeking Susan, a film which introduced the song "Into the Groove," her first number-one single in the United Kingdom.[32] Although not the lead actress for the film, her profile was such that the movie widely became seen (and marketed) as a Madonna vehicle[33], reportedly creating tensions with her co-star Rosanna Arquette [citation]. The film received a nomination...."VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, but I can't access the page number in google. I'll try to ask a friend of mine who has the actual book. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - much appreciated. Also thanks for the clear up after my cut and paste job. btw, for future refereence, as I said in the edit summary, The Times is not NYT, but what is sometimes called in your neck of the woods in America "The London Times".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism material removed

The criticism material here cannot be removed. The context in which Joni Mitchell speaking is very clear. If you want to move this into the legacy section, then that is fine. However, it is a form of vandalism to simply erase anything that is not positive, especially when the article is already very biased in the positive direction. The Joni Mitchell statement MUST stay if this article is to be considered neutral. Boab (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Removing sourced material when supported by reasons is NOT "a form of vandalism", so please don't continue with that attitude. You've now added it three times, despite the continuing discussion in the section above. Some of what you have added is useful, a lot of it is garbage, and the discussion above goes into further detail. It is not up to other editors to wade through what you have added and pick out the useful bits and merge them into the article, if you're not prepared to spend any time more than what it takes to copy and paste an edit. It is being discussed, and nobody has presented the view that anything that is not positive is to be removed. There is support for the Joni Mitchell statement. Let the discussion lead to a conclusion, and be patient. The material has been gone from the article for 2 years you say. It's not urgent that it be put back right at this moment. Rossrs (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

— Jimbo Wales
When an article concerns the biography of a living person, its bad taste to simply group random criticisms together because the article becomes a WP:ATTACKPAGE. If you would like to be proactive with the information you are attempting to input, place the information in its proper context, along side the relevant information and time period or section of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, the Joni Mitchell quote is now in, in clearly the most obvious place, contextualised to show it's not just Madonna she's having a go at. As a note, WP:ATTACKPAGE doesn't apply here, as one criticism section does not make an attack page. The reasons for not having stand alone criticism sections are not to protect BLP in and of themselves, it is that they can, it is said, lead to bad writing and act as magnets for all kinds of POV activity (there is an oppositing view that criticism sections make POV pushing easier to manage). It is not the case that criticism sections are against the rules; the strong trend is not to have them. Personally I quite like them if they're well structured, because I think it's easier then for several people to edit the same article. However, clearly the consensus here and on popstar pages in general is not to have separate sections but to integrate them. On the other hand, Boab really should not accuse people of vandalism when his edits were removed because they were against consensus on how to put criticism in. Editing persistently against consensus is disruptive. Boab, if you agree that the criticisms do not have to be in one block, but entered throughout the article where appropriate, then edit the article like that. And please read other people's comments here more carefully.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Boab, you cannot accuse people randomly of vandalism like this when there is a clear consensus of putting the material in the article in your prescribed form. Either read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF or leave it! However, Vsevolod has put the material in a very decent form, by inserting it as part of the prose, rather than a separate section which would have indeed become an attack page for anyone not editing under NPOV. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section organisation

Just a thought - wouldn't it be nice for the leading section to be organised according to the various notable things about her - music, films and business each put together? At the moment the lead is a bit chronological; the mention of her filmwork gives undue weight to Evita and her film success; in reality her film career has been a little more patchy than that (of the three areas she's notable for, it's clearly the least successful). The main text tells the story chronologically VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually thats how the main biography is organised. Hence the LEAD repeats that. Also amongst all her films, Evita was the most successful. Well, successful by a huge margin compared to all her other films. Hence it is the only most notable film achievement and is put in the lead. I believe its fine as it is and Undue weightage has not been given. Let's see what other editors have to say. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer chronological order over anything else. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Legolas, I see what you're saying, but her status as an actress is not defined by her role in Evita, which was a musical, after all. Using "most successful" has its merits, but I think if we over-use that criteria in biographies, we're basically writing hagiography. Desperately Seeking Susan and Body of Evidence are also notable (first was part of her original rise to fame, the second typical of her over-the-top sex themes of the early 1990s as well as a notable stinker of a film, nominated for six razzies and on Roger Ebert's list of most hated films. The lead can say something like "Her film career has been more uneven. Starting with the comedy Desperately Seeking Susan (1985), it has consisted of highs (a Golden Globe for her role as Evita Peron in Evita) and lows (the universally panned erotic thriller Body of Evidence) as well as the commercially successful tour documentary In Bed with Madonna..." This seems balanced to me.
Bookkeeper, if you like chronological, how about each section of the lead being chronological? Having it all chronological actually makes it difficult to get a quick understanding of who Madonna is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced about the change. What you have suggested is already there in the lead in chronological order. And whether musical or not, Evita has been the sole film for which her reception in the acting world has been appreciated. Although I must note that most reviewers stated that Madonna actually did what she does best "sing and dance". I prefer the chronology in this case. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, appreciated and notable, while they are often related, are not the same things. What I and some other editors have said about the tone not feeling neutral perhaps comes down to this distinction.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm only adding it here because of the previous POV talk about her film roles. At the moment it says that "Her provocative imagery continued with the erotic thrillers Body of Evidence...[which] contained scenes of S&M and bondage hence was poorly received by critics." It seems to have been panned because it was a bad film, not because of the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.98.17 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As per bookkeeper's suggestion on my talkpage, I'm sandboxing an alternative lead to show you my ideas. I'll show you all when it's ready.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article size/section size

I'm becoming concerned about the size of the article. Granted, there is a lot to say about Madonna and a large article is not by any means a bad thing, but the recent additions to the Musical Style and Legacy section are beginning to feel bloated, rather than comprehensive. The information and subject matter is excellent, but it seems to run on endlessly.

For instance, in the Musical Style and influence section, I just added one paragraph on the analysis of her talent but then we have 5 paragraphs covering her influence. To be balanced, we should have either 2 or 3 paragraphs on each subject for grand total of either 5 or 6 with an even distribution of both style and influence. Same problem in the expanded legacy, a lot of useful information, but the section itself seems overloaded. There is a need for better brevity of the information given. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much problem with the information except that, maybe a little re-structuring can be done. Which I believe can lead to briefing up the information. Lets do this at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/Influence untill a consensus is reached. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New Material added to balance out Legacy section

HI, I added some new material (all of which is carefully cited) to help balance out the Legacy section. It is important to mention that many people have questioned whether Madonna is really that talented. By the way, I am actually a fan. I just want to make the article more neutral in tone. Boab (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm moved the information to the Musical Style section. Critical Analysis is somewhat different than a legacy. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I had to remove all of your additions. You gave poor quality sources and beyond that the links to these did not actually work. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The links work for me. Given that there's been dispute about this, I think it was a little too bold to go removing all of the material without discussing it first, especially as Boab has done exactly what we requested he do. I'd have tried to find links that work, which is the best good faith thing to do. The Courtney Love material backs up Joni Mitchell, which is important. Lily Allen's quote is perhaps less notable, and possibly not relevant (Lily Allen's statement is arguably more about Lily Allen than Madonna). I'm looking into the other ones now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I'll do. The Courtney Love material should go in, as it triangulates with Joni Mitchell. Both elements should really go in the legacy section as "not being that good, but selling well" is not an element of musical style. Where it is now it just doesn't fit. The Meryl Streep link (all that was wrong was formatting) actually says that Streep denies criticising Madonna, so it shouldn't be there. Lily Allen's quote I think is simply not relevant (sorry Boab). All it's really saying, I feel, is "I'm young, and I think young people would rather buy my records than hers."VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As for sourcing, Bookkeeper was right that the sources were not the best - so I've resourced the Courtney Love quote to NME. As I said in the edit summary, it would be nice to have some good quote from the Madonna side about these criticisms. The reply to Joni Mitchell by a spokesman isn't really illuminating - just saying that well, Madge loves Joni anyway.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Contact Music, as well as the other sources provided would not be considered WP:RS. If we are going to be using direct quotes from people, we should have exemplary sources. Moreover, I can respect Joni Mitchell's position, but that is because she has been considered "the worlds greatest female songwriter" and one of the worlds greatest songwriters regardless of gender. Courtney Love on the other hand mouths off at every pop star at every opportunity almost as much as Morrissey does. With the wealth of information available on Madonna, I'd rather we use academic and professional musical critics who can give us a much more objective point of view, rather than listing a buch of contemporary rivals who don't like her. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Courtney Love is notable, though, and I've mentioned that it's part of a feud. It also says pretty much the same as Joni Mitchell, which is why it's relevant - it shows that it's not just Joni Mitchell that thinks these things. I've also changed the Courtney Love sourcing to NME, which is RS musical press. I really would like to say again - if the sourcing's bad for a quote, then find another source rather than delete. Googling a quotation is very easy; to get RS use Google News Archives or Google Books.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I use google books, scholar and news, as well as Proquest database on a daily basis. However, just because a quote exists, does not mean I'm going to agree it belongs in the article. I really would like to say again, I'd rather we use academic and professional musical critics who can give us a much more objective point of view, rather than listing a bunch of contemporary rivals who don't like her.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree with Vsevolod. In no way is Courtney Love notable regarding commentary or criticism of a person's work or life. I agree that Joni Mitchell is notable, but Courtney Love has been saying same things about each and every pop star that there is. I find these additions more tabloidy than ever before. And yes, untill and unless a RS comes for the quotes, that one should be deleted, rather than keep. (sorry vsevolod) I agree with Book that any critical response should come from scholars and notable authors, rather than people form the same field. Of course they will bad-mouth and criticise each other! How, in the Good Lord's name, can that ever be notable? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the NME not a notable source?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break 1

(Outdent)NME barely passes as RS. However, even if a hard-fast RS is found, like Billboard for eq, we have to ask the question "Is it notable"? I find it as a BIG non-notable incident. People from the same field do bitch about each other continuously. I find any addition like this to be tabloidy and completely unencyclopedic. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are joking. The NME is one of the principle music newspapers in the UK. Anyway, I've put in a similar quote from Michael Jackson sourced in a book published by Chicago University Press. Please don't cry UNDUE on me; having only Joni Mitchell listed as saying the things that she said is actually non-neutral, by representing her opinion as unique. As another RS says "I am of the opinion, shared by many, that Madonna can neither dance nor sing." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/germaine-greer-the-genius-of-madonna-409826.html.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I had to revert your change. As I have said before, anyone within the same field of work, criticising one another, fails notability. Joni Mitchell's credibility comes as a songwriter first, and then as a musician. Hence not the same field. And please stop being hasty when there is a consensus against addition like this. I can ask you to stop crying UNBALANCED to me then. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Germaine Greer's quotes can definitely go in the article as she is highly reputed and notable. I read the article and although it appears to be more in favour, but Greer's quotes are valuable.--Legolas (talk2me) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) NME is a highly reliable source (one of the worlds best actually regarding the music industry) - that point, however, is not what I am contesting. My point is that as an encyclopedia, and with an access to widely revered academic studies on Madonna, quotes from other entertainers are highly unnecessary. I'm 100% certain professional music critics (such as any who may have reviewed her albums at NME) and academic scholars have expressed the same sentiments as Michell, and no doubt with a much more in depth analysis. Critical representation should be our Primary use, and if absolutely necessary, followed by a single statment such as, "these opinions have been shared by other artists such as Mitchell, Jackson, Love, Morrissey (continued laundry list of whoever has talked shit about Madonna)" etc. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Book, however, except for that part about adding if "absolutely necessary, followed by a single statment such as, "these opinions have been shared by other artists such as Mitchell, Jackson, Love, Morrissey (continued laundry list of whoever has talked shit about Madonna)" etc. As I have said before, people working within the same field, competing with each other, will always talk shit about each other. How can that be encyclopedic and NPOV? There is enough material I expect that scholars and books will have which can definitely balance out the legacy section, without these additions as Vsevolod insists. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To Legolas: First of all, there is no consensus against Michael Jackson's opinions - or even against Courtney Love's. Boab and I have argued for their inclusion, bookkeeper and your good self have not. I have accepted, in the spirit of co-operation, that Courtney Love's quote doesn't go in. Note that the argument put forward was that she attacks everybody and is not a good quote source because of it. This is not true of Michael Jackson. Secondly, I can find nothing in WP:N that goes against the inclusion of Michael Jackson's views. Thirdly, read what I put at the top. "However her ability to overcome her own musical limits has been criticised by other musicians." In effect you are arguing that no criticism of a person by their peers can ever be considered notable - unless it's Joni Mitchell. Surely you can see that position is untenable.
Bookkeeper - the quotes put in are addressing a specific point - that her business sense is the key to her success, more than her talent. I find your argument that we should have a list of all and sundry a bit odd, because surely that defeats the point of avoiding the usual whining of people like Love and Morissey.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have explained before also that Mitchell's creduibility comes as the greatest female songwriter, not as a singer or infact, as musician. That cannot be considered as a peer for Madonna. I am not against adding any negative comments or anything, I'm just against adding quotes from simlar artists like Madonna, because for me, the credibility of their comments are dubious and can be a retort also to the fact that Madonna's business sense had overpowered them. Hence an outsider of that group and his/her quote and comment is highly welcomed, as you have pointed out, the article by Greer is really useful. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break 2

(outdent) should we ask someone not involved to resolve this? (ie. WP:RfC) We're not even agreeing on what policy is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(yet another edit conflict) For the record, I'm against using any quotes from peers, Mitchell or otherwise. My stance is to only use scholarly analysis. However, given that there is an obvious desire to mention quotes from other entertainers, I believe they should be given less weight by simply acknowledging their sentiments have already been expressed by professional critics in a single statement, rather than saying "well mitchell said this, love said that and jackson said this." esp considering all there statements are essentially repetitions of one another. As I mentioned in an earlier section, my other primary concern for this article is brevity, pro or con. Everything that has been said about Madonna does not need to be said in one article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No response yet on the idea of an RfC, but in any case, how's this for a neutral RfC description of our dispute?: Editors in dispute over the appropriate use and weighting of quotations and opinions from other artistes in a paragraph of the legacy section.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since its only three of us discussing, lets give a chance to other contributors of BLPs, especially this one to voice their opinion. If we don't reach a conclusion then also, we can try RfC. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. I really think we need others here - we're in danger of edit warring or one side "winning" through attrition, which is not healthy. I can't see much common ground without someone producing a source that meets my desire to give the point what I believe is due articulation and back-up, and your wishes on the nature of sourcing. I don't find the Germaine Greer reference as helpful as the Jackson one. Apart from saying that certain opinions are widely held (which is what I think removes UNDUE worries), which can be RS as a matter of GG's integrity as a notable academic and commentator, I would not rate her article in detail as so notable as it's a little outside her specialism. Anyway, is there a place to invite people over to comment? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Greer's credibility has always been established as a feminist writer and socio-critic. Hence the article from Independent is notable enough in its content, according to my POV. I have already asked others to comment on this. LEt's see what they have to say. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I left a note at the Wiki Music Project here. That should give us enough responses without having to open a full RfC. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I said earlier that I thought there was value in Joni Mitchell's comment, but reading this discussion, I'm now doubtful. Bookkeeper makes an excellent point, I believe, in suggesting "scholarly analysis" and I would extend that to perhaps include people who have some direct connection or relevance to Madonna. If Michael Jackson is commenting on his association with Madonna, that would be more relevant in my opinion than him making a broad comment that does not relate to their association. Somebody who is as high-profile as Madonna is going to be the subject of the full range of comments from the gushing fans to the harshest of critics. I don't think that attempting to represent that range of commentary with an equal number of quotations for either side is necessarily going to create a balance. On the contrary, I think it encourages selectively seeking out negative comments regardless of their relevance. The comments of Mitchell and Love could both be no more than sour grapes - we don't really know. I also wonder if Mitchell's comment is given greater weight because of her stature as a musician. What if the exact same sentence had been said by someone else? The words and the attitude would be the same, but would they be less meaningful if they'd been said by Britney instead of Joni? I think Mitchell has been chosen, not because she is the right person to be speaking, but because we want a negative comment and she has obliged us by providing a particularly strong one. It looks a little like we're saying that we have X number of positive comments so to balance them we need X number of negative comments, and I don't think that is the solution. I'm all for balance but I don't think this is it.

On the other hand, I would consider Germaine Greer to be a suitable person to speak from a certain perspective. I strongly disagree that Greer is speaking from outside her specialism. Her field of expertise is certainly not specifically music or musicians, but she is eminently notable for her discussion on feminism, humanism, society, gender roles and culture/popular culture. Madonna notably fits into discussion of any of these topics. If Greer was giving an album review, I would say don't listen to her, but she's probably better qualified than many to talk about a notable person from a broader point of view, and that is what she is doing. I think that to say her comments about Madonna are negative would be to miss her main point : she says "She can't sing and she can't dance" BUT she follows that with a "But..." and looking at the entire article, Greer expresses more approval than disapproval and more admiration than contempt. It's a negative phrase that is actually used to strengthen a positive comment and to take it out of context, Greer's meaning is changed. I think this shows how easy it is to manipulate quotes, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to convey a particular impression. Whether there is anything of huge value in Greer's article is another story. I don't see a single quote that encapsulates her viewpoint. Rossrs (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also... do we need to mention David Bowie? His name is just thrown in there. Rossrs (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your commments. I think it is not because of looking for negative opinions (although that's how I and others came across it) that the point about Madonna not being successful because of her individual talent (but instead an eye for a good team or business sense) should be included. It appears to be a commonly held perception. It is this point that I feel Greer is not best suited as a source. She can be RS for how widespread an opinion is, but I'd be unhappy for her to be a source detailing the precise nature of the opinion of some in the music industry. Her specialism is feminist theory and literature; she gets TV work commenting on anything, which muddies the waters on what her real expertise is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well done Rossrs, what I have been trying to say. Although I do support Mitchell's quote because of what it exactly says and what Vsevold wants in the article, that Madonna's expertise and popularity came more of hiring and dealing with the right people. At this point of time I'm completely against adding anything other than scholarly attributions regarding this issue. No comments by fellow artists and, as pointed out by Rossrs, sour grapes. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we're wandering into confusion here. In many other areas, peer comments by established, succesful peers would count as useful. There is no evidence that Joni Mitchell systematically criticsed her peers through professional envy, nor Michael Jackson. That is, it is a presumption that I cannot find in policy, that popstars are more inevitably bitchy than other artists. Some might be (for example, Courtney Love), but that's true of music critics too.
For me there are two ways of looking at this article. One is exploit sources to represent what we believe is a fair representation of Madonna (which is what we've all been doing), or the second is be strict with sources (and a fair number of books cited here are, as is the nature of publishing industry, little short of hagiography), and as a result, have an article about a third of the size we have now. How many of the Madonna books have been peer-reviewed for neutrality? How many of the writers have an established track record of fact verification?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As an illustration of the problem: editors here have rejected the quotation I inserted from Michael Jackson, even though it was sourced to a book that passes RS as much as any other book here. That is, an RS source thought Jackson's quote worth mentioning because it's more than simple bitching rivalry, but a contrast between Jackson's respect for Prince and his attitude towards Madonna. What editors here are doing is passing judgement on the decisions by RS authors to make certain material notable. That is OR, and not allowed. Either the source is RS and we have to take their judgements seriously, or it's not RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't define original research at all. WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. In evaluating the sources we have available, we are still using published sources, not making up our own evaluation of Madonna. We can't use every reliable source for a single biography, that's just commons sense. Editors have to make choices on the sources they use for every article on wikipedia. There is nothing bias about reserving the article for critical commentary rather than using the opinions of rivals, as long as the information/evaluation results in a NPOV evaluation. You're implying we're trying to avoid Madonna being criticized - we're not, the list of books and quotes I left below which offers plenty of criticism proves that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(afterthought) I'd be perfectly fine not using published biographies/autobiographies of Madonna. As I've stated numerous times, the wealth of information on her means we can exclude anything that isn't a third party source. All it takes is a little grunt work. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As a note, it's OR because it involves picking and choosing material in a way that constitutes a new analysis of existing sources - in effect respecting everything in the book as usable except the author's reasons for referring to MJ's comments about Madonna. It's a kind of POV apparently backed up with RS, in effect, OR. Remember that the paragraph began (something like) "Madonna's success in overcoming her musical limitations has been criticised by some notable people working within the music industry." The quotations were not about whether or not she's good, but that many notable people have made the same specific comment.
I've no interest in going to the wall over this. However, it does seem that every time negative comments from figures that are not boo-hiss people (i.e. not the Catholic Church) appear, they get challenged or removed. I suspect this has been going on for some time. A good example of the biased coverage is the one sentence description of Body of Evidence, a film that is famously bad and did a fair bit of damage to her image, followed by a sentence of a straight to video film, for which she personally received a mildly positive review (mentioned) in an otherwise negative review (not mentioned). She herself said it was "shit and I hate it" (not mentioned) and which she killed as a cinema release (not mentioned). That whole section only seems to hint occasionally at the major career problems she was going through, but that is how the period is defined in terms of her life. These sections are not randomly drawn. The Kabbalah material, of course, mysteriously disappeared into the html netherworld and had to be recovered. Her stoking controversy and thereby generate publicity by annoying the Catholic Church was described as "responding well to criticism". The coverage of Madonna's adoptions has a biased approach to coverage of the human rights protests against the move (only mentioning them as an irritant for the father). And now trying to get in material from people saying "she can't sing or dance much" is proving awfully difficult. I think everyone here is trying to act in good faith, but as an outsider to Madonna (pop music in general, in fact), this article does not seem balanced, and it seems to gloss over or minimise anything critical of her. I think there has been a systematic unconscious POV mindframe applied for a while in this article. I am far from the only editor who has mentioned this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In no way it constitutes WP:OR. What you are actually saying is add every damn thing that anybody has ever said about the person, then that way the article is balanced. You are simply crying your eyes out just because MJ's comment have been removed? Then again you are saying that involved editors are acting in good faith but they are applying their POV. All me and Bookkeeper has said that not to include quotes from people of same field, but a scholarly approach. And Book is already looking for material that can help us. Could you please stop the accusations for a little while and see whether involved editors actually work out something? I am losing my GF in you now. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
For you to note, Body of Evidence is already there in the article. Her provocative imagery continued with the erotic thrillers Body of Evidence and Dangerous Game. The first film contained scenes of S&M and bondage hence was poorly received by critics.[1][2] Dangerous Game was released straight-to-video in North America but received some good reviews for Madonna's performance. The New York Times described that "She submits impressively to the emotions raging furiously around her."[3] How much more do you want to give in the bio? Don't you think that will be way too much WP:UNDUE. The article makes it clear that it was a combination of Sex, Erotica and these two films that made the damage to her image, not singularly. Hence any overemphasis cannot be given to any of the topics. Again, this is already pointed out in the LEAD that they were poorly received from contemporaries and liberals. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Your reaction is symptomatic of the problem. You don't see the bias. What would I do? First of all I'd drop a long mention of Dangerous Game as wholly undue and instead lengthen the entry on Body of Evidence. Perhaps you can explain why should a straight to video film take up more space (including only positive aspects of a trashed film) than a genuine low moment which received far more coverage. I'd also shorten and make neutral the material on the Malawi adoptions. As for your statement "What you are actually saying is add every damn thing that anybody has ever said about the person, then that way the article is balanced". I used the word "notable", (and have shown that I do not consider to be anybody to be notable) and I was suggesting it be limited to one, repeated refrain about Madonna's career, a refrain whose frequency has been attested to (but not very snappily expressed) by Germaine Greer. The point I am making is that people are applying far higher standards of RS, UNDUE and NOTE to negative statements than they are to positive, and that this results in POV. I would make some of these changes myself, but at the moment I'm losing faith in the process. Your caricaturing of my position doesn't help things.
I'm also an outsider to Madonna, and its difficult because this isn't an article about subject matter, its a biography of a living person. Before, the article was pretty much arranged as "good stuff about madonna" and "bad stuff about madonna" which isn't helpful to the reader without proper context. As we saw with this recent addition/removal to the legacy section, there was poor sourcing and unqualified representation. Of all articles on wikipedia, biographies of living people should be the most difficult, because
  • Criticism and praise: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.
As I've been saying all along, if we want criticism, they should be qualified. Its not enough just to say we should have some and then throw in any we find. There should always be careful consideration. And considering all the information I've already provided, isn't it somewhat silly to continue this circular argument, when you, I or any other editor on this talk page could have reasonably already written a comprehensive and neutral Legacy section using the 5 books and 2 PDF articles written by third party sources not attached to Madonna's camp? There is enough information there to make this entire argument a moot point. I've mentioned several times brevity should be a focal point of this article as well, pro or con. That mean trimming down a lot of the positive overkill in the article as well. I think we already have enough information to do that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
So long as praise is also subject to the same criteria and qualifications. For example, Bono's quote supporting Madonna's adoption fails the same tests (undue, bias, notability, non-RS) that have been applied to Jacko and Joni. I don't mean that in a pointy way. If you look back at the discussion on this talk page, the reasons for not including those critical comments have shifted every time previous objections were met. It's difficult to edit according to consensus if the groundrules keep shifting. I'm happy to go along with your ideas on sources to use so long as the principles are applied consistently.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. My consistent standard has been only to use academic or scholarly sources, if that means weeding out sources on praise that appear to be below the threshold, so be it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ Metz, Benson, pp. 17-20
  2. ^ "Body of Evidence". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
  3. ^ Maslin, Janet (November 19, 1993). "Film Review, Dangerous Game". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_9&oldid=1089053236"