Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madonna (entertainer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Madonna (entertainer) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article Milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing of brilliant prose Kept February 28, 2005 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: Hard to place it, but feels just shy of an A. Would be a GA if the article had gone through the process. -- Avi 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

This article is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.

	To-do list for Madonna (entertainer):	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
"Ma" does not mean "my" in Italian. It should be "mia". List of work needed: New Picture at top of page Seperate section on the article detailing acting career. Info needs to be removed from the album sections of her biography. Information on article needs to be prioritised and processed. Currently too much information - most of it unneeded and isnt notable. Information about the performance of singles and albums needs to be cut down considerabley and the details need to be placed on the song/albums own page. There is FAR too much clutter. Sources needed to be added a lot of the claims in the articles. Although some claims are cited - a lot arent. Rimmers 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Suggest new headers for biographical section, which currently consists entirely of album titles. This limits discussion of her career to these albums and makes it difficult to discuss other relevant events unless they neatly fall under discussion of one of the albums. Information could be collated and headed chronologically as per Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey articles. This will also help trim some of the excessive info from specific album sections as per the above "most of it is unneeded" etc. Rossrs 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) A paragraph or two about Maverick Records. This is a huge achievement and it currently gets about half a sentence. Rossrs 15:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC) The 'Objectiveness' section of the article is clearly a subjective rant from the point of view of a fan. It contains extremely poor grammar and profuse weasel-words. Could this please be cleaned up/removed? Suggest a list of possible names for the next child she adopts. Probably a Nigger from Africa, or perhaps a gook - just like Brangalina.

A previous version of this article was considered for inclusion in the Wikipedia OmniMusica, but was not selected because of stylistic concerns.

See also: Talk:Madonna (singer).

Archives:

1. 01 (July 26, 2005 to March 1, 2006)
2. 02 (March 1, 2005 to April 6, 2006)
3. 03 (April 7, 2006 to December 30, 2006)

Contents 1 UPDATE IFPI 2 Objectiveness 3 Diet and exercise section 4 Madonna's entertainer to artiste 5 Criticism section 6 Objectiveness 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.1.1 Survey - Support votes 7.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 7.2 Discussion 8 Lyrics 9 Way too long! 10 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE 11 A new picture.... 12 "Queen of Pop" 13 Confessions Tour 14 Madonna's Net Worth? 15 Constant changes 16 Vandalism 17 Madonna's birthdate 18 Last name 19 Intro 20 Grammy Wins 21 Pointy Bra 22 350 million records worldwide : World Best Selling Female Artist 23 At Michigan 24 STOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP 25 Vandalism 26 Madonna's mother was Canadian 27 Madonna's mother, part II 28 Would Someone Be Willing To Start A Fashion Section 29 Acting and book bios 30 This article is way too fancrufty

[edit] UPDATE IFPI

Maybe it's time to update the intro and write that teh IFPI ahve finally confirmed that Madoona HAS SOLD MORE than 200 million albums The most official source in music idustry confirms: Madonna's unprecedented album sales for a female artist top the 200 millio albums (which means well more than 300m million records worldwide including singles, probably 320/330) Source... [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.181.217 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Objectiveness

User 84.45.196.194 wrote This seems to me like the rantings of a fan, aiming to score one above the criticisms. There are no sources quoted, and weasel-words are predominant.

Well, the one that created the Criticism section admitted to absolutely hate Madonna, which denotes some bias. And the review of Love Profusion that was given was a blatant rant. I wrote great Madonna lyrics. Those who reviewed Love Profusion chose the simplest lyrics of the song in order to bash it. "We all know she can't write lyrics...", "...even for a retard." THAT was a retarded rant! Some artists' articles like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and many others don't even have a criticism section. I'm only being objective and would write the same thing for any artist.

Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I now edited the Objectiveness section and it's perfect. Israell 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diet and exercise section

Is it necessary that this have its own section? Can't it be incorporated somewhere else in the article. We cant comment on EVERY aspect of Madonna's lifestyle Peter2012

- YES WE CAN! Thats the beauty of an online, uncensored & unlimited information site like wikipedia. Any and all correct reliable information can and should be included in articles. The more correct & detailed info an article has, the better! And just specifically about the diet and exercise section, I was actually quite shocked at how small it was! Diet and exercise are a HUGE part of Madonnas life and public image! She spends several hours every single day doing all kinds of exercises and workouts, and she is now almost as renowned for her incredibly fit body as she is for her music! Therefore the diet and exercise section should definitely be expanded with also a focus on how it is a large part of her public image. HF3 - 15 January 2007

[edit] Madonna's entertainer to artiste

The term 'artiste' is definitely more appropriate to describe Madonna Louise Ciccone than 'entertainer', which is used for circus clowns, cabaret shows, etc, which is absolutely ridiculous. Madonna is an artiste not an entertainer - she is pop star! Do not use words like idiosyncratic, sure you jest, but the term 'entertainer' is more idiosyncratic than artiste which is a more appropriate term... If there are any alternative choice of words, prefably it would be (Singer/Actress), (Performer) or (Artiste

'Entertainer' is an insult to the Madonna whom u classified her amongst circus clowns, cabaret show girls, magicians, stand-up comedians and game-show hosts... Madonna is not in the same category as them! Stealthusa 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shut up moron they call MJ an entertainer and he is 1 billion times better then Madonna

If we must add to Madonna's name, I think that artiste does fit better than entertainer, though I don't think that "entertainer" was an insult and I do think that "Artiste" should not be capitalized. However, I think that this article would be better located at simply "Madonna", relocating the disambiguation page there to "Madonna (disambiguation)", as has been done with Cher and Cher (disambiguation). Charity 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

- Please tell me you are taking the piss?!? Peter2012

Perhaps can we settle to Madonna (singer/actress) or Madonna (performer), i still do not like the term entertainer, it makes her looks as if she is some showgirl or circus clown! Please do not revert back!Stealthusa 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MADONNA, ELVIS, ROLLING STONES ARE NOT REAL MUSICAL TALENT, NEITHER WAS SINATRA, THEY CANT DANCE, WRITE SONGS, OR DO THE THINNGS MICHAEL JACKSON, PRINCE, JAMES BROWN OR EVEN BETALES CAN DO

Stop moving the page around. Have a discussion here about a proper renaming, which would not involve pretentious pseudo-French nor incorrect capitalisation, get consensus, move the page, and then edit the several hundred pages that link here to reflect the change. If you're actually just goofing around, please use the Wikipedia:Sandbox for that. Jkelly 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you wish to move the page to a different title, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It clearly warrants discussion, so please no more page moves until we've had a thorough talk about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:RM, and there is a section for discussing the move at the bottom of this page now. —ShadowHalo 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

It seems that there are different interpretations of the meaning of the word "criticism" as used in the header of the same name. In terms of artistic review it encompasses comments that are both negative and positive. Hence a 'film critic' can critique a film and say nothing but good about it, or nothing but bad, or a mix of both. The "criticism" section would be more balanced and more in line with WP:NPOV if it summarized critical commentary both negative and positive. But the last thing this article needs is another essay or another injection of POV. Perhaps a different heading would make it clearer - perhaps "Critical comments" or "Critical commentary" etc. The "objectiveness" section is anything but objective and appears to be completely POV. (At least the criticism section is sourced and attributed) however I can see the value in tempering the exclusively negative tone of the "criticism section". Rossrs 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some may regard her vocal range as limited, but this is not criticism. One's vocal range has little to do with oe's singing quality. Moreover, these 'some' mentioned in teh article are cery little informed about vocal range. With a continuous range of 2.5 octaves, Madonna far exceeds the average singer's range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.33.6 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Objectiveness

User 84.45.196.194 wrote This seems to me like the rantings of a fan, aiming to score one above the criticisms. There are no sources quoted, and weasel-words are predominant.

Well, the one that created the Criticism section admitted to absolutely hate Madonna, which denotes some bias. And the review of Love Profusion that was given was a blatant rant. I wrote great Madonna lyrics. Those who reviewed Love Profusion chose the simplest lyrics of the song in order to bash it. "We all know she can't write lyrics...", "...even for a retard." THAT was a retarded rant! Some artists' articles like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and many others don't even have a criticism section. I'm only being objective and would write the same thing for any artist.

Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I now edited the Objectiveness section and it's perfect. Israell 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the criticism section was very much negative. It makes Madonna look like a talentless Warner Bros. doll that sold a lot but can't write lyrics, sing etc. As I said earlier, some artists' articles, like Janet and Mariah's don't even have a Criticism section. Madonna's didn't have one but some anti-Madonna people insisted on there being a Criticism section. and they made it very much negativer by using horrible quotes, especially the brainless Love Profusion review.

It's an insult to Madonna's songwriting talent. She's always been writing songs. She wrote most songs on Madonna and Like A Virgin. She's was already very talented at it. There is a difference between criticism and blatant dissing. Madonna wrote so many compelling lyrics such as: "I traded fame for love without a secong thought. It all became a silly game. Some things cannot be bought. -Drowned World-" You can tell that there is no substance and professionalism in that criticism.

Israell 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the objectiveness section; this is not a fan page. And that entire section is nothing but glorifying her. I'm not saying that the Criticism section is without problems, but the verbiage in the Objectiveness section should not be here. There is no similar entry on ANY other potentially controversial individual on Wikipedia, from George W. Bush to Michael Jackson, or even Saddam Hussein. It likewise, should not be here. --Mhking 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because the Criticism section was made in a very negative way. It was made by someone that admitted to hating Madonna and it's NOT an anti-Madonna page neither. Some artists' articles don't even have a Criticism section. It makes it look like she CAN'T write lyrics. It's only fair to BALANCE things and make it neutral. And I did edit it.

Israell 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that -- my problem was specifically that the Objectiveness section was made to look like a fawning fan section. And as I said, no other page here has that. A balanced Criticism section is best for all. (and as for the confirmation name, I agree with you - my point was with the persons who included that name as a birth name) --Mhking 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Israell -- Wikipedia is not a fan site. An Objectiveness section has no place here. It does not exist under any other entry on the site. Period. If you have a problem with balance in the Criticism section, then rewrite that section to reflect the balance. But recognize that we're talking balance -- not cheerleading. --Mhking 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I just balanced the Criticism section and as I said earlier, other artists' articles such as Mariah and Janet don't have a Criticism section. Madonna's Criticism section is nothing but bashing her as it was made by anti-Madonna fans. Also, the article is getting too long -it got a lenght warning- and it's a waste of space because everything in that section was ALREADY addressed elsewhere in the article. Other parts of the article do mention the Sex/Erotica scandal, the Like A Prayer scandal, the David Ritchie contoversy, people doubting her talent because of controversy surrounding her etc. A Criticism section was honestly NOT necessary. Since it was so negative, I balanced it. There might need to be a vote on that whole section.

Israell 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Israell, you appear to be adding more "complimentary" content to the criticism section. I'm going to say this again, this is not a fan site. I'm going to reduce the amount of glad-handing you've posted. Balance is one thing; what you're doing is going beyond that. --Mhking 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

OK. That edit MUST be good. Since ONE line from Love Profusion was added and criticised negatively, I added ONE Live To Tell line and added a source that criticises it positively. We're equal and even now. lol Editing a Madonna page is so hard hard. This I know. lol

However, Madonna's vocals on Live To Tell were considered her best by others at the time^[1].

They deemed Live To Tell's lyrics poignant.^[2] "A man call tell a thousand lies. I've learned my lesson well. Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned. 'Til then it will burn inside of me."^[3]

Madonna also received good reviews from some reviewers for her Love Don't Live Here Anymore cover^[4] which was described as "heartfelt vocal"^[5].

Some critics do see Madonna as a talented songwriter^[6][7].

Israell 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long!

This article is way too long and should be divided into sub-articles Epachamo 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Keep the opening paragraph as short and obejective as possible. Lines like "She is 'COMMONLY' referred to as Queen of Pop or sometimes just "the Queen" are total nonsense. Madonna is NOT "COMMONLY" referred to as that, but SOMETIMES. And nobody calls her "THE QUEEN" except her uber-hardcore fans. PatrickJ83 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. The recent edits seem to be aimed to glorify her, with the editor single-handlely keeping reverting the text back to the prior, biased version, saying the phrases should stay simply because they've been there for weeks and weren't hers/his in the first place. I have no idea where the reasoning comes from. Please, let's keep this objective. I have reverted.--Downtownstar 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, you are so right. The lead is meant to be a short summary of the article, not a publicity blurb. Rossrs 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new picture....

Would this picture be ok to use for the main page??

http://images.forbes.com/media/2007/01/women/women_4.jpg PatrickJ83 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Queen of Pop"

I was doing some thinking of the inclusion of this 'title' in the opening salvo. As fitting as it is for her position as the highest selling female artist (it is VERY UNLIKELY M. Carey has outsold her) it still smacks of bias and fan idolatry. Perhaps this should be removed from the opening paragraph to make it more professional. Opinions? PatrickJ83 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WELL MIRIAH IS MULATA, MIXED WITH BLACK SO MADONNA IS LIKE AN ELVIS YOU KNOW PLAYS BLACK MUSIC RING A BELL?? You see, it's impossible to come to an understanding with you. We removed "commonly" that was added by others, replaced it by "sometimes" and now you want it completely gone when it caused no problem, when it's true and factual that she is referred as such.

Several newspapers, journalists, websites and publications did credit her as being the Queen Of Pop. It's not just a "fan thing". Madonna's widely known as The Queen Of Pop just like Elvis Presley is widely known as The King Of Rock and Michael Jackson as The King Of Pop. Courtney Love is now starting to be known as The Queen Of Rock. I said that first and Linda Perry said it several months later as well as some other people. Israell 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't say 'it's impossible to come to an understanding with me' as you and I have had NO dealings together in the past. Ta. PatrickJ83 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has removed this comment several times in the past, I'd be happy to see it gone from the lead section. And before anyone starts ranting at me, please read WP:LEAD to see what kind of information is supposed to be recorded there. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article that follows, but although the article goes on (and on and on and on) there is no mention of "Queen of Pop" anywhere. In my opinion this defies logic. It's so important it must be mentioned without any kind of context in the lead, but not important enough to even mention it in the article despite the thousands and thousands of words that attempt to describe Madonna in extreme detail. I have no problem with it being mentioned in the article, in fact I would encourage it, but the lead should be reserved for the most important things about the subject and the fact that Madonna is sometimes referred to as "Queen of Pop" is not one of the most important things to say about her. Rossrs 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and I removed it again. I have nothing against mentioning the Queen of Pop thingy in the article, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.--Downtownstar 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just visited the Elvis Presley article and "The King of Rock 'n' Roll", as well as "The King" were included in the opening paragraph. Israell 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Elvis was widely known by those titles where as the Madonna ones are not very widely known. No doubst sources do exist but i for one have never seen her referred by those titles in print. WhizzBang 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that those titles should be added to both the Madonna and Michael Jackson articles, not just Elvis. Madonna and Michael might have been called that less but they were called that very often throughout their entire careers. Often enough to be included. Israell 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I DONT THINK YOU CAN COMPARE MADONNA TO MJ SORRY YOU CANT COMPARE A BUICK WITH A FERRARI, SHE CANNOT SING LIKE WHITNEY OR MIRIAH, CANT BE GENIUS LIKE PRINCE, CANT DANCE OR SING, BE VERSATILE LIKE MJ, SHES BUBBLE GUM POP SORRY, SHE HAS NEVER WRITTEN A GENIUS SONG LIKE BILLIE JEAN OR LIL RED CORVETTER, SORRY EVERYONE KNOWS THIS , THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO LIKE MADONNA ARE GAYS, AND WOMEN CAUSE SHE IS ONE, JANET JACKSON IS EVEN BETTER, SORRY

• I moved the Queen of Pop claim to the main article. I hope we won't have to vote about this, since it's not that important of a detail and we should concentrate on improving the article a little more profoundly.--Downtownstar 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Queen Of Pop thing... well I did find this on the IFPI website look into this link http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_month_20060913.html where Madonna is awarded her 4th platinum for COADF note the Queen Of Pop reference...

I still have a problem with the title being included at all. It is not widely used -- certainly not within the mainstream media. If anything, it is more fancruft, and as such, does not belong in a Wikipedia entry. I'll leave it for now; I'm about to be away for a family emergency. But this is something that truly needs to be excised. --Mhking 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mhking, Madonna is called The Queen of Pop, just about every time she is written about. The media dubbed her that and continue to refer to it. Downdown723 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give three examples? I have never heard of this. WhizzBang 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever it is sign your comments and don't talk in Caps. 80.43.9.157 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Madonna is commonly called The Queen of Pop, don't know what rock your living under but I work for a newspaper and we are always told to put Queen of Pop when writing about Madonna.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.110.54 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Confessions Tour

I understand that you don't wanna glamourize her or anything but there is nothing wrong or biased about the Confessions Tour info. I did not put it there first, it was there for weeks and no one had a PROBLEM with it in the first place. Why is there such a big fuss about it now?

The Rolling Stones article does mention a tour in the opening paragraph. Why not let those read the article KNOW that fact. Why conceal the knowledge?

In your opinion it might be irrelevant but I do not share it and others agree with me. In my opinion, that info is more pertinent and relevant than the Forbes magazine info that is not necessarily that accurate. Let's compromise and leave both the Confessions Tour and Forbes magazine info there. Israell 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you guys keep the article summarize and additional information should be in it's separate article.--HW-Barnstar PLS 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely LOVE how you claim it's "impossible" to work with ME when YOU CONSTANTLY revert everyone's professional work and emphasize shallow, unimportant things like this tour into the opening paragraph. Wikipedia is not a F-ing publicity sheet, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you want to glorify Madonna, Israell, go start your own webpage or MySpace about her. Enyclopedia Brittanica (who has a Madonna article) would not put this tour in its opening statement about her. It is NOT CRUCIAL to a quick overview of her career. PatrickJ83 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, please calm down, Patrick. No need for curse words here. Second off, I agree with you - not only on the Confessions Tour part but on Israell's edits in general. I just can't see the reasoning behind his/her habit of trying to make the article look like a cheap fanzine rant. It's no favor to anybody, particularly Madonna.--Downtownstar 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um I didn't curse. Show me where I cursed. PatrickJ83 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a F-ing publicity sheet". Anyway, let's move on to discussing the article.--Downtownstar 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're misfocusing and dishonest. What the hell were my edits? Please, tell me. I did not add anything new. "fashion trendsetter", "Queen of Pop", the Confessions Tour info were all there for weeks. Already there when I first read the article. No one had a problem with them. No one said it looked cheap, biased or irrelevant.

I don't know what kind of demon possessed your spirits but there HAD to be a big fuss over puerile things. If those pieces of information caused such a problem, were so bad, they would have been removed a long time ago by established users.

I just don't understand the big fuss NOW! Just because I do not share your views does not mean I'm wrong. Mine are as valuable as yours and we need to work together if we want to achieve it.

I can PROOVE that I'm NOT the only one that sees "Queen of Pop" and the Confessions Tour info as pertinent. Someone ELSE just added them back! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.154.162.136 just put it back! I swear that's not me! You see? I ain't the only one in this assessment.

But the choice is yours... HONOUR the choice of the majority that sees "Queen of Pop" and the Confessions Tour info as pertinent, true, factual or keep on OBSESSING on deleting it. I'm backing off. No time to waste. Thank you. Israell 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I visited the History pages and as of October 31st 2002 Queen Of Pop was already there. "Madonna is the stage name used by Madonna Ciccone, a pop singer considered by many to be the queen of popular music. She has had a long career that has been full of success and controversy."

I went to the Bette Midler article and saw that: "Bette Davis Midler (born December 1, 1945) is an American singer, actress, and comedian, also known to her fans and especially in gay culture, as The Divine Miss M." You see? They put her title, The Divine Miss M, there! They don't see it as so irrelevant! Israell 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of your excuse of what "everyone else" did or supposedly did. PatrickJ83 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could everyone try to calm down and focus on the main objective - trying to improve the Madonna article. I sincerely believe that's what everyone is trying to do, but approaching it from different directions. The "Queen of Pop" thing is not the biggest problem here. There's a sentence in the article that describes Madonna as one of the most important people in the history of the world. Really, that kind of overstatement does her a disservice. She's made an incredible, unique contribution to pop music, culture etc but that's barely acknowledged in favor of a bunch of meaningless praise. Can we please look at the entire article, and rather than give examples such as Bette Midler, which is not a particularly good article, please compare it to the various singers, actors, performers etc who are the subjects of featured articles. There are numerous "bad" articles that we could use as a rationale for the development of the Madonna article but I would prefer to draw inspiration from the best articles rather than the mediocre. There is some justification for the "Divine Miss M" reference. She was actually known by that moniker early in her career as it was a character she created and for a time she was that character on and off-stage. Her stage show and album used the same name - it was a strong connection. Maybe not strong enough for the lead sentence, but it doesn't compare with the media created "Queen of Pop" tag.

Once again I draw your attention to WP:LEAD. Please take a few moments to read it so that we can at least try to tackle this from the same angle instead of all this bickering, which is doing nothing but harm. Nothing should be in the lead section that is not in the article because the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. If the "Queen of Pop" reference is so important, please discuss it in the article so it at least has some context. "She's commonly called "Queen of Pop". Big deal - what does that mean? There's no attempt to place it into any context, there's no meaning, no explanation. Please try to keep personal opinions aside and use WP guidelines to approach the article objectively. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? is also full of useful tips on what to aim for. This used to be a featured article (believe it or not), and there's no reason it can't be again. Rossrs 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Confessions Tour paragraph has appeared in the opening, this time with an extensive babble how her latest album has been an international bestseller. All this info is already in the article and doesn't belong in a summary of it.--Downtownstar 08:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. That wasn't me. Always visit the History page to see who added/removed things. I know you knew it wasn't me. Just a general message. Israell 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna's Net Worth?

Why isn't this in the main section? Madonna is not only the richest woman in music, but she is also one of the richest in the world. A lot of people want to know about Madonna's Net Worth. I have done years of research on Madonna's fortune and i believe a lot of people want to know aswell.

Net worth

Madonna is the richest female singer in the world, and one of the richest self-made women in the world, with an estimated net worth of over $850 million. Her wealth is closer to $850m USD than the reported $665m. In 2004 alone, she earned more than $50 million with her Re-Invention Tour which became a new record for a female singer on The "Guinness Book of Records".[4]

. On ABC's "Life of Luxury", which aired on December 13, 2000, Madonna was named the richest female artist with an estimated fortune of $613,000,000. Madonna just may be a billionaire herself... if not today, then very shortly in time.

Aside from her music and films, Madonna is also involved in the magagement of MadGuy Films; Boy Toy, Inc.; Webo Girl; Siren Films; Slutco, Inc..

Maverick Records was the most successful "vanity label" in music history. While under Madonna's control it generated well over $1 'billion dollars for Warner Bros. Records, more money than any other recording artist's record label. She helped bankroll Alanis Morissette and Michelle Branch's careers.

Alvin Hall, presenter of World's Most Powerful on BBC News chose Madonna as the World's Most Powerful Celebrity, followed by Oprah Winfrey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QueenofPopfan4ever (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Constant changes

One of the problems of the articles are the constant changes. "In addition, Madonna holds the record for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist.", has been replaced by "In addition, Madonna holds the record (previously by Cher) for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist.", and finally by "She also holds the record for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist."

"She is often referred to as the Queen of Pop." has been added too.

Wikipedia should have a new policy. Edits should first be approved before featuring on articles. It would save us time, prevent vandalism and we would not have to keep on reverting/correcting them. Israell 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The constant changes can be an annoyance but sometimes they can lead to improvements, and I think that it's better to let people edit freely without having to get a consensus for each edit. That would be even more time-consuming so I think we should save the talk page for the difficult issues that provoke disagreement. What you are doing is exactly right - watching for edits that are problematic and fixing them. Some of the best articles have grown out of confusion and contraversy. Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue and Celine Dion are featured articles, and you know, they were all a huge mess and the subjects of a lot of edit warring at various times. You are one of several editors that cares about this article, and it'll end up being steered in the right direction just as Carey, Minogue and Dion were. It just takes patience and persistence. I wouldn't be too alarmed about all these recent edits. Rossrs 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

"She is also a fashion icon and has a vagina.", "August 16, 1917 -they added a fake birth year- I am a old fart, like literally 100 years old... I cant act or sing just to let you know.... thanks again.", "She is the ugliest person who ever made it into the music world. She needs to die. She looks like a troll. Tony thinks shes sooooooo hot though.", "maddona is now staring the the new cradle of filth video fuck me bastard. she is also a slut and sleeeping with dani filth the lead singer of cradle of filth." All 4 comments have been added from Jan. 28th to Jan. 30. by those 4 users: "Redmotherfive, 71.233.242.180, 81.145.241.87 and 69.130.190.15". I requested semi-protection.Israell 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna's birthdate

please change her birthyear; it's currently listed as 1928 (age 78)!

203.79.252.193 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2/8/07

[edit] Last name

Does any know how to pronounce Madonna's last name (Ciccone)? Thanks!

"Chick - ony" (ony rhymes with "Tony") Rossrs 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's how an American would pronounce it. Like Americans pronounce "versah-cee". You pronounce it "chick-oney" trying to avoid sounding like "chick-oneyyyyyy". Dollvalley 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I have edited the intro to give it a more encyclopedic feel. The information that has been removed is available elsewhere on Wikipedia in the article

• Madonna's achievements and awards which I have added a link to under the See also section. fritte 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently my edit did not sit well with Downtown723 and my edit was reverted within 20 minutes of being saved. I'm not getting into a revertwar over it, but I would like to know why both the link to Madonna's achievements and awards and my edit to the intro were removed, since the revert is described as a minor edit. [2] This is the edit I made. fritte 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Downtown723, but while you are waiting for him to comment, maybe you could read through WP:Lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article that follows and a long article such as this could and probably should have at least 3 paragraphs to adequately deal with it. If you have concerns about the POV tone of it, perhaps you could add that she is often criticised and maligned (this would be ok as the article contains discussion of this nature) to balance the POV. The lead is by no means perfect, and anything that can be done to improve it is a good thing to aim for, but just deleting most of it, doesn't improve it. Also, I will move this to the bottom of the page as new discussions should go at the bottom. Rossrs 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a big dispute recently and I love and I'm satisfied by the way Downtown723 settled everything. QOP was moved to the Criticism section and the rest remained on top. As Rossrs said, the intro is a summary of the article. In one moment, it gives the readers all that pertinent information. If they're in a hurry, can't read the whole thing and so on, they can still have an overview of her career and achievements. The Michael Jackson article has a MUCH MORE longer intro and there were no concerns. It gives those who visit his article much information in an instant. Celine Dion's article intro is longer too and does NOT address criticism even though the article does in the image section.

On another note, the article is much more stable since it was protected. No more vandalism, insults, foul language etc. Israell 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy Wins

Seems like the number is 8. It kept changing. http://www.iconmadonna.com/index.php http://www.madonna.com/

[edit] Pointy Bra

I can't believe there's no picture or mention of the pointy bra! 71.222.200.138 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Madonna Wayne Gacy, member of the band Marilyn Manson, pulls his name from pop star Madonna, and notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

[edit] 350 million records worldwide : World Best Selling Female Artist

I just saw on M6 Channel Madonna has sold more than 350 million records worldwide making her (according to the add) the world best selling female artist ever breaking then Mariah Carey record. I'm searching for the link. Readerweb 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At Michigan

Who is Damian Zikakis? Via google, he appears to be a success full accountant. Is he really notable enough to be mentioned in the article? I'm not going to edit anything myself, but I think the sentence about him should be removed. Mls737 05:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to him as non-notable (and trivial). Be bold next time!--Vbd | (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

STOP it with the horrid biased glorification in the intro! Who the hell put that "Immaculate Collection...highest selling album" bit in the intro? PURE fan glorification. This is NOT necessary to the intro and NOT an important aspect to Madonna's entire career. Keep this stuff OUT! PatrickJ83 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not me at all, and as you said, not necessary. Israell 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say stop with the biased comments altogether. Dollvalley 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Madonna has been unprotected today and there has already been some vandalism. User 75.14.63.9 wrote 'DEATH TO MADONNA FOR HER ANIMAL CRUELTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Israell 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing repeated vandalism from ip address: 75.14.54.140 with the same message as above. --Tbannist 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna's mother was Canadian

She was from Quebec which is in Canada, not America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.140.231 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing out this error. From what I can tell, Madonna's mother was born in the U.S. but was of French-Canadian descent. I have edited the text accordingly.--Vbd (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna's mother, part II

Why did I revert User:Israell's phrase, ". . . Madonna Louise Fortin, an American who was of French-Canadian descent" back to "Madonna Louise Fortin, who was of French-Canadian descent"? Because the word "American" is implied and is therefore unnecessary. I don't think it adds any clarity to the sentence. If anything, it makes the sentence awkward.--Vbd (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would Someone Be Willing To Start A Fashion Section

Madonna has had so many looks over the years and now her own official fashion line. Would someone be up to creating a page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.82.248 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Acting and book bios

Why have the portions on Madonna's acting and book history been relocated to other pages? Both are integral parts of her history as an artist, and certainly have more place in her article than "diet and exercise" and "at the present". — Charity 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was way too long. As per Wiki standards, it HAD to be cut down. There are already sections dedicated to those topics anyway. Herewego123 05:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is way too fancrufty

The wording in some sections makes it very evident that it was written by excited fans, who were having the time of their lives. Case in point, the meticulously detailed song descriptions on the audio samples. Very fancrufty. - Jtpop 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the photos. I wouldn't dare touch it myself, since I know an edit war would begin. The page is entirely too long as well, and lacks any sources. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, go ahead! Herewego123 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)