Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

#1 VRS. "Number One," 33 VRS. "Thirty-Three"

I decided to go back into this page and try to clean it up a bit more. If I am writing about the chart position of a single, shouldn't it be listed as "#1" instead of "Number One"? Also, I believe the standard accepted Associated Press usage of numbers is that numerals under nine are spelled out, whereas anything over 10 is in numeral characters. Therefore, Madonna's concert in Seattle sold out in "33 minutes," not "Thirty-three minutes." The only exception to this rule is when starting a sentence with a number. You'd never write a sentence like: "33 minutes is all it took to sell out the concert." Instead, it should be, "Thirty-three minutes is all it took to seel out the concert." But I'm about to give up on this issue, because it's frustrating to continually see it reverted back to written numberals as opposed to numeral characters. Aesculapius75 23:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't know about the AP, but standard grammar involves spelling out numbers that are over 100, not 10. Fiona 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
AP style — and what I learned — is to spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above except when the numeral begins a sentence. Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence, except when it identifies a calendar year. I also agree with Aesculapius75 about the "#1" usage. Also see Numbers in words --Nate Silva 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I can confirm that the correct way in which to write or type numbers is as stated above: anything below 10 is written in word format, anything above is written as a numerical. This is not an opinion but the widely accepted correct usage of the English language.

Easter Bradford

This biography was originally penned by Easter Bradford, who posted it on the wikipedia. Any resemblance to already existing biographies is coincidental due to the strictly factual nature of this entry. It is freely distributable and alterable, as is all content on wikipedia. -EB-

Article Name

The article Madonna included information both on the Virgin Mary and Madonna, the singer. A poster child, if you will, for disambiguation. The talk comments above come from the original Madonna page.

Since this is a fairly popular article, I would like to explain: why "Madonna (singer)" and not "Madonna (actress)" or "Madonna (celebrity)"? Because that's what she's best known for. In redirecting the links I noticed only one mention of Madonna's acting career and that was in passing. I also followed the lead of Cher's article, which is Cher (entertainer). Unlike Cher, Madonna's in no danger of winning an Oscar. When people link to the article, the simplest and most natural link to make is "Madonna (singer)". For the same reason, I didn't title this article Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone. Nobody's going to use that in a link.

Performed some copyedit for punctuation and wording. Sorry about the multiple edits, I just find it easier to go section by section with a big article like this.Isotope23 17:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

High Streets

There are several mentions of the term "high streets" in this article when discussing how Madonna's popularity spawned people to mimic her clothing and make fashion trends out of the way she dressed. What exactly are the "high streets"? When i first read it I thought perhaps someone means to say "high schools and streets" and made an error, but it appears again later. This is a term I've never, ever heard before.

"high streets" are the pop couture counterpart to the haute couture of the catwalk. "High Street" (UK) literally means "Main Street" (US) but "main streets" AFAIK isn't a generic term for "streets", "urban streets", "malls", "shopping centres" &c. [1] [2]
chocolateboy 13:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found just one such mention remaining, and changed it to "It started yet another fashion trend, with pink cowboy hats adorned by tiaras seen on streets and catwalks around the world." TheMadBaron 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Lourdes

I've added information on her daughter Lourdes to the lead section since that article (Lourdes Leon Ciccone) currently redirects to this one (Madonna (entertainer)) and it's damn near impossible to find the one (other) mention of her in this article. - dcljr 04:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Citations

MadonnaFan, could you please list your sources for the changes you're making? Thanks. --fvw* 08:30, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Madonna's official website, RIAA, Billboard, SoundScan, Warner Bros. Records, Guiness Book of World Records...
good enough for you? MadonnaFan

Not quite, could you give specific sources for your changes to sales numbers? --fvw* 08:37, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

LOL, what if I don't LOL... and those are actual sorces... MadonnaFan

I'm sure they are, but you must understand the necessity of verifying figures, otherwise anybody could put random figures on wikipedia and it wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia anymore. --fvw* 08:51, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Anyway, my source is SoundScan for the change in sales #'s, the shipments based on RIAA certifications (go to their actual website for certification info) were listed and I changed them to rough sales (SoundScan sales)... Everything I changed is factual... Also go to the Guiness Books official website and look up the record... An about the 250 million figure, look up Madonna's tour announcment frome earlier this year... MadonnaFan 08:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any sales numbers on the SoundScan site, could you give a direct link? --fvw* 08:51, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

No I can't, I got the SoundScan numbers from a poster on the MadonnaNation web forums and then verified them, they are real, trust me, why are you being so picky? MadonnaFan

So where did you verify them? If we were not going to be picky about verifying our data we might as well not bother with trying to make an encyclopedia, and let's face it, the history you have with Wikipedia isn't spotless (removing overwriting parts of Madonna (entertainer) and List of best selling music artists is not nice). Please list verifiable sources or I will revert your unverifiable changes. --fvw* 09:38, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

The highest selling list is completely wrong... It says on this website that anyone can contribute anything, and be prepared to have your info edited... I didn't think it was this complicated, those are the actual figures, don't believe me, and if you don't check out my other sources, then bite me! Do you even know what SoundScan is?
On Mariah's page it says her Greatest Hits sold 1,000,000 in the U.S. but it has actually only sold around 560,000 copies and is certified platinum because it is a double album and the RIAA doubles their certifictions for double albums, why don't you complain about that?
I know more about this subject than anyone here and want to share lots of information, If you "revert" my figures I am not posting here anymore!!!!
Here are some good Madonna sites to look up information: www.madonna.com, www.absolutemadonna.com, etc... would you like more? MadonnaFan
Well, my info was erased so apparently The Guiness Book and it's official website along with maddona.com are not viable sources so... BITE ME!!!!! keep contributing to this lame ass, so-called encyclopedia... MadonnaFan
What about this source?
  • Has sold 153 million albums worldwide
Where did this come from? MadonnaFan
Anyway, my sources:
  • RIAA certifications: www.riaa.com - searchable database, Madonna / Bestsellers, Top 100 albums and Top Artists
  • 250million records sold world wide
  • www.madonna.com - HTML site, News archives, March - April 2004, Re-Inevention World Tour - Tour Announcement
  • Estimated album-by-album sales and world wide album sales total
  • www.madonna.com - HTML site, Music, Albums / www.absolutemadonna.com - singles sold
  • Singles chart and sales information
  • www.madonna.com - HTML site, Music, Singles
Now, can I please post???????????? MadonnaFan

copied from User talk:Chocolateboy#MadonnaFan:

As Hadal mentioned, those stats should be integrated into the body of the article if possible. ("Fun Facts" is redundant as it's a synonym for "Trivia".) Citing the specific source for each "fact" would also be helpful. Surely it's not that difficult to copy the URL of the page on madonna.com, absolutemadonna.com, go.to/Madonna or billboard.com that provided each "fun fact" as you have done for Guinness World Records, which is appreciated.

You can cite each source by appending the URL in square brackets like this:

According to Guinness World Records, Madonna is the most successful female artist of all time. [3]

chocolateboy 06:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well, on madonna's website you have to open a second window and there is no way to see/copy an adress but:
MadonnaFan 22:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links.

It's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the style of the article you're editing. You'll notice that none of the items in the trivia section ends in an ellipsis.

"Fun Facts" is the wrong name for that section - as indicated above. In addition, as has been suggested several times, most of those stats should be merged into the article.

there is no way to see/copy an adress

There's always a way - if you ask.

If you use Firefox or Mozilla, you can right-click on the frame you're trying to find the URL of - then: This Frame -> View Frame Info. In IE, right-click the frame (make sure you right-click the background or text of the frame rather than an image), then select Properties.

chocolateboy 16:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Wonderful, thanks for links, that all looks fine. Welcome again to the Wikipedia project! --fvw* 23:58, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Net Worth, ABC... http://popdirt.com/article35232.html MadonnaFan 21:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MTV VMA stats http://www.keithers.com/madonna/vmahistory.html MadonnaFan 01:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Changed information back

An unidentified user changed my 250 million records figure without reading my links here on the talk page, they said she had sold only 155 million records ww, lol. This person is a crazy Celine fan as he changed som innacurate info. I updated on her page. MadonnaFan 02:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www.madonnavillage.com/library/totalsales.html The information on sales on this site dont agree with ur numbers. (Dec 6)


I also a Madonna fan, but "MadonnaFan"s numbers are incorrect.


That is a fansite, above I gave a link to Madonna's actual sales estimates from Warner Bros... 250 million RECORDS is correct... MadonnaFan 21:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I restored the 250 million figure a few moments ago, I didn't know but I wasn't logged in... MadonnaFan 00:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to guinnessworldrecords.com Madonna sales as on of November 2000 was 120 milion ( http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=55387 ) , so how it jumped in 4 years to 250 milion ?? Vorash 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

120 million albums, not records (albums and singles) and it is a well known fact that Madonna had sold 140 million albums by 2000 and that that figure was low, just look st the sales estimates at Madonna.com if you want proof!

Die Another Day IS NOT a Madonna album. It is a movie soundtrack.

"Die Another Day" IS a Madonna album

IS NOT a Madonna album! There have been numerous changes by fans discounting the fact that the "Die Another Day" soundtrack is a Madonna album. WB Records is Madonna's label, and the "DAD" soundtrack was released on that label. Therefore, it counts as a Madonna album, even though the bulk of the music is score highlights by David Arnold. Over the years, Bond soundtracks have been released on labels of the singers who have done Bond songs. For example, A&M Records originally released the "Octopussy" album, and because A&M is Rita Cooledge's label, it originally counted as a Cooledge album.

What if the Beach Boys had sung a Bond song in the 1960s and the soundtrack was released on Capitol Records? Would it count as a Beach Boys album? Of course it would.

So yes, "DAD" IS, IS, IS a Madonna album. Therefore, I'm changing the article in a few days to reflect this. Hiphats 08:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


It is NOT a Madonna album, just because it was released on Warner Bros. Records? Are you stupid? That means every old Prince album is a Madonna album, as well as all of the other artists that are/were signed ot Warners. It is NOT a Madonna album, it is a soundtrack!!!!!!!! creditied to various artists!

actually, as in the case of "who's that girl" and "the next best thing," since it was the label that madonna was signed to released the album, it counts as a full album via her contract. it is not a full artistic statement, but it fulfills her contract as an album. i think that's what the previous poster was trying to get across. so s/he is not stupid. and that's also why the first batman soundtrack counted towards prince's contract with warner bros. it wasn't his album artistically (it would have to be shared with danny elfman) but contractually, it fulfilled his agreement with his record company. same as "who's that girl," "evita," and "the next best thing," for madonna.

Conical bra

I'm surprised that I was unable to find anything about that bra in this article. Please could a sentence or two be added explaining its origins and cultural impact? Lupin 12:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Madonna Ciccone Ritchie

I want to propose to move this page to Madonna Ciccone Ritchie. This is an article about person - Madonna Ciccone Ritchie, not about her stage name/alias, and i think it will be appropriate to name an article after the person's name. Vorash 09:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions, specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Hyacinth 20:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

On what basis do you suggest this be done? There's no real evidence of a change of name, even if she once showed up on a list of charitable donors as "M Ritchie." This doesn't really prove anything under common law. --ProhibitOnions 17:00, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Perhaps this incident will put the whole Ritchie-as-last-name thing to rest: [4] Her husband couldn't remember her full "real" name, but her surname is clearly Ciccone. ProhibitOnions 10:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Trivia- film roles that she turned down

We are missing one film role she turned down. I think we should add it in. She turned down Gina Gershon's role in Showgirls. Unlike the rest of the film roles she turned down, the actress did not recieve an Oscar Nomination for this film. Check Madonna's entrie at the Internet Movie Database if you don't believe I am correct.

POV

"Maverick Records is the most successful "vanity label" in music history", "Madonna is the most successful dance artist in music history", "Madonna has had more music videos played more often on MTV than any other artist." are POV. Maverick Records wasn't independent label, it had 50% ownership of Warner. Article about the label says "Although Madonna had a partial ownership in the label until 2004, she rarely was involved with any of the day-to-day operations of the company". "most successful dance artist in music history" is pure demagogy. I added word US to this sentence ("most successful dance artist in US music history"), but User:MadonnaBoy removed it and now it looks like she is the most succesfull dance artist in the WORLD. "Madonna was named the sexiest recording artist ever on VH1's 100 Sexiest Artists." dosn't belong here. "Madonna has had more music videos played more often on MTV than any other artist." is unverified. Vorash 08:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I gave TONS of links already, and Madonna IS the most successful dance artist in the world, any idiot that follows the world wide charts knows that! And unverified? MTV has said on air at numerous occasions that she's had the most videos, And do you think P.Diddy is the SOLE owner of Bad Boy Records? No! They ALL have major label support, and they are called "vanity labels" because a famous recording star is at the head of the company... I swear I know more than all you people put together!!! User:MadonnaBoy
About what exactly charts are you talking about ??? You saw China or India charts too ?? NO?? THey have a population of 2,5 billion people !! Or maybe you saw Brazilian or Russian charts?? Also about what MTV are you talking about ?? MTV US ?? or MTV UK ?? MTV Europe ?? MTV Canada? You have some 50 MTV's - see full list here. Please be more specific !! Vorash 16:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MTV US you idiot! Madonna is known THE WORLD OVER and only Indian artists do very well in India, there is basically NO music market in Russia (one that doesn't matter anyway) and Madonna is HUGE in Brazil! And why are watching this page like a hawk and why the hell do you even have the authority? You obviously know NOTHING about Madonna or the recording industry. This is a public site where anyone can edit, NOTHING is official, why are you being such a picky bitch!? and why is it so serious??

I obviously know EVERYTHING about Madonna and have donated a WEALTH of information to this page and gave TONS of links, the one absolutemadonna.com link shows the peaks of her singles WORLD WIDE, don't be so lazy and look at the site.

And what the hell gives YOU the right to change my information? Prove it wrong, I challenge you...MadonnaBoy 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any info about Madonna's "dance' popularity in all World's 120+ countries on absolutemadonna.com. Wikipedia is an international site for users of all countries in the World and information here should apply to WHOLE the WORLD !.
Also there is a HUGE market in Russia !! Russian singer Alla Pugacheva sold more than Madonna according to Encyclopedia Britannica. She already sold 250 million in 1997 and now her totals are around 300 million !! BUt according to Guinness Book of World Records Madonna sold only 120 million as of NOvember 2000. !! So if you write in article about Madonna's Guinness Book entry you should also write that they actually claim 120 million, which is not a lot !! Vorash 19:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Guinness Book of Records always uses 'most successful' for all artists, by which they obviously mean in sales terms. The Russian market is too small to allow such sales (as is the greek market) and data have been hard to come by since quite recently. Claims of more than 100M for artists that are not internationally known are not veritable. We must remember that of the 2.2billion records sold every year, 1.5 are sold in the US and Europe, and markets such as Russia are a very small fraction of it. Even superfamous singers in Italy (Mina and Celentano), which is a bigger market than Russia and 10 times bigger than Greece, and who are famous in other countries as well, have been around for 50 years topping the Italian chart every single year, have sold about 70M records each (Celentano 70M, Mina 76, that includes albums and singles). Some record companies do go wild about claims. The Guinness Book of Records is at the moment revising data concerning Madonna, as they based their entry on a 1996 (!!!! yes it came out in 2000, but WB had not bothered to give statements for some time...) Warner Bros declaration of 120M. The next entry should read 200M albums, and they are considering entering the singles as well. Anyway, if for you 120M is not much, and still the highest number the Book of Records came across, it means that the others would be below 120M.

The book says "most succesful" not highest selling! You're like a broken record, this link [5] shows the peak of her singles in several major countries, and someone doesn't have to be famous in EVERY single country to be #1... you know what, you're a simpleton that doesn't use correct grammar or spelling, common sense, or logic and you act like you are the boss in order to overcompensate for it. You are an annoying little troll that nobody has to listen to, and I'm not gonna argue with you.I can change whatever the hell I want on this site, and I could write an article 100 times better than this one, one that actually has some structure and a sense of organization, but I'm not gonna waste my time, everyone knows NOTHING on this site is official and and it will never be taken seriously...

P.S. - Russia isn't even one of the biggest music markets in the world ;-) In no particular order they are the US, UK, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Germany, and France... But I guess you'll say that's wrong too (rolls eyes).

Have fun terrorizing the next intelligent person that drops by ;-) MadonnaBoy 19:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YOur link represents 4 English speaking countries and only 1 non English speaking country with total population of 0.5 billion. But we talking about 6 billion total World's population here. It's not enough.Vorash 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Us has about 30% of the World Market, and the UK 12, Europe last year was about 35%, so, even if the world is 6 billion people, it appears that about 1 billion cover 65% of the market, Asia (Japan especially, yes, not China or India, Japan is the biggest Asian market) and a few South American countries bring the total to almost 100%. World inhabitants do not match music consumption, as they do not match consumption at all.
As of "music markets", you talking about official markets, but these official markets figures don't represent music popularity in the world. In countries like Russia,India,China and many others you have HUGE pirate CD markets. Vorash 21:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, but you can go find for your self the official IFPI PLATINUM AWARDS page and you can find figures there that prove that EUROPE holds 1/3 of music sales around the World. You can also find in the SOUNDSCAN site (you have to pay) or in BILLBOARD figures that prove that the USA holds another 1/3 of music sales around the world. The other 1/3 goes to countries in North and South America, Afria, Asia and Oceania. And that artist you mentioned, the russian one, i read somewhere that her figures are doubtful, because her label in one country said she sold 100 million copies less than her same leabel in another country. It is impossible to know any singer's sales figures, the label is the only one that can give figures. Warner Bros. said that Madonna has sold 250 million copies worldwide (records and singles) and that's who we trust, not the guiness records because at that time Madonna had already surpassed the 140 million record sales. Oh and something else, Madonna is the WORLD'S most succesful dance artist, her world wide single sales prove that. Just check the world wide dance single sales and you'll see. Check sales for Vogue, Ray Of Light, Music, Die Another Day just to name a few. There's almost 10 million sold in those few singles i've mentioned. 67.133.183.16


5.9+3.5+2.5+1.7 is opast 10 Million....


Hahahhaa !!!!!!! Madonna is the WORLD'S most succesful dance artist, because of her world wide single sales ???????? "world wide dance single sales" ??????????? Vorash 03:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is why. Or what do you consider being succesful? All the singles that Madonna has released that are Dance genere prove how well they have sold around the world. Are you fan of Donna Summer? LOL.

Are you a fan of Madonna ???? LOL Vorash 17:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you stupid? because i'm not.

IF YOU'RE NOT A FAN OF MADONNA, WHY ARE YOU HERE?! Geez. Some people. User:Cigarettes&ChocolateMilk

Picture on Author section

Can someone please put the English Roses cover on the Author Section, as English Roses is her most sucessful book to date (as of June 2005). Thank You. 67.133.183.16

I need help

Hello everybody! I was spending the last days trying to help the wikipedia by writing and starting pages about her singles, as other musicians have. But all my work are being in danger. One masterful man Mel Etitis wants all to be his way. He's rude. I'm tired and asking for help. If my contributions are any longer being spoiled I'd give up making anymore. He's killing the initiative of the people who trying to share something good with the other people. With regards Beautifulstranger

  1. I haven't been rude (a glance at your Talk page will demonstrate that; I've even apologised for an initial misunderstanding).
  2. You're wildly overstating the case.
  3. What are at issue are a few minor questions of style & formatting. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you should explain in detail and with examples why he is a "masterful man" and why he "is killing" your initiative - Vorash 18:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC). Formating is not an invention of Mel Etitis, its a Wikipedia guideline. Vorash 18:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

song length

Length 3:57 Country House (song) Song Length 13:48 on Debra (song) Endless Love (song) Hello, Goodbye Everytime One Sweet Day Wild Wild West (hip hop song)

all these pages, all that i've seen have it "0:00" way. So it seems to be a standard here. even iTunes. so do you want the others playing your rules.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulstranger (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 July 2005

Well, maybe you should check first about this "0' 0"" time format in Wikipedia style guidline ? If it's a official Wikipedia' format , there is nothing we can do about it. I also don't like this format, but if this is an official Wikipedia format we probably should follow the rules. Vorash 18:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


  • i was quitely creating the pages. Not making bad to anyone, trying to make everything right. but then he has begun all that stuff. and even added cleanup to the Don't Tell Me page. I'm trying to collect all the info about the song and he wants to remove it. What only half of the page? If it's more it needs to be cleaned up?User:Beautifulstranger

Wikipedia style guidline says Time formatting Times should be written in the 24-hour clock (hh:mm or hh:mm:ss). The 12-hour clock has a number of problems: it isn't used throughout the world; it often makes it harder to convert between different time zones; and "12:00 am" and "12:00 pm" are ambiguous. When using 12-hour times anyway, it is important that they are identified with an am or pm designation, so that they are not mistaken for 24-hour times. Be sure to use the same time format consistently throughout an article and do not edit articles merely to change the time format.

So mm:ss is the right format!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulstranger (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 July 2005


  1. No, that's for use when telling the time; we're concerned here with durations. That's part of the reason that I dislike the "12:45" format for durations — it's ambiguous.
  2. I think that you haven't understood the "cleanup" template; why not read what it says, follow the links, etc.?
  3. There are three main systems that people are using to represent durations; you seem only to have seen one of them, for some reason — the other ways are the one that I've been adding, and "12min 45sec" (which is worse than "12:45" in some ways). I'm discussing this issue at the relevant pages now, and will report back if anything useful is said.
  4. Beautifulstrange (talk · contribs) is evidently both unfamiliar with Wikipedia custom and approach and not a native speaker of English; both of those things are fine, and he or she is very welcome — but he or she should be a little more patient and less inclined to fly into a panic or a rage when more experienced editors try to put him or her right. I've tried to be helpful, friendly, polite, and I've been responded to with accusations, attack, etc. Just calm down, be prepared to learn, and you'll doubtless enjoy editing here. If you continue to readt to other editors in the way you have been, you're likely not to enjoy being here at all.
  5. Please remember to sign your messages (using four tildes: ~~~~). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Tours

Anye Madge fans want to expand the listing on her tours into full articles. I just created a new category for concert tours... [[Catgeory:Concert tours]] --Madchester 21:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

fair use

Aren't there any possibilities to get images in accordance to our Wikimedia Commons policy? There is only one usable image in here and that's a real problem for interwiki translations, in addition to copyright aspects (with an article every lawyer would pray for > music industrie). Please ask for free images, search for free images, use free images and then if nothing helps, it might be ok for the english Wikipedia to accept free use stuff. It shouldn't be the first option to chose and it shouldn't be the most used option like here, because if it is, this article is non-usable for anyone out of the US. --18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Size of article

The size of this article is 52 KB while the guidelines of Wikipedia recommends an article not surpass 32 KB. However, there is a lot to be said about Madonna, and instead of just removing information from this article I suggest it be moved to a book on Wikibooks [[6]]. Therefore I have added a link at the bottom of this page so this article can be downsized to a more resonable format without information being removed and forgotten. /Bensin 22:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia "official policy" doesn't say that info should be removed, it says that the article could be split off and the info could be moved to separate sub-pages. - Vorash 23:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Aesculapius75 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of pages on Wiki that deserve a template that might read:
Caution -- this page is maintained primarily by the fans of this topic, and can not be trusted as a source of accurate, unbiased information, especially information which might be perceived as "negative" towards the topic. In addition, this page is subject to sudden, violent content swings as various factions edit and revert the page.
This would be handy for the articles about most media celebrities, many "cult" media topics such as Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Prisoner, and a vast number of political and politically-related articles such as Nuclear power and George W. Bush.
I've long since become convinced that there are certain areas/topics where an encyclopedia that can be edited by any anonymous yahoo who comes along can never converge on meaningful, accurate, NPOV content for those topics.
Atlant 12:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It has been suggested by another admin that a template be devised, warning the reader that an article is a fan-page, and is in need of work (in terms of English, Wiki-style, and content). My own feeling is that it wouldn't work, but who knows? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I stumbled across this page looking for information about Madonna and must admit that this page, as a NPOV encyclopedia article, is an absolute farce. "Factual" though it may be, this page basically reads like a fanzine or "Dedicated to...." web ring page. Makes Wikipedia look poor, blah. Freddie Mercury also led an extremely interesting life, but at least his entry includes the good, the bad, and the ugly --Sirimiri 04:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


recent revert

I've just everted a string of edits made in second-language English, that introduced unnecessary detail, and which were all signed. If anyone thinks that any of them could be reinserted (in corrected form), then OK — I didn't see any useful ones myself.

Queen of pop

Is she commonly known as this? Is there a source for the claim? It sounds both temporally limited and tendentious. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The "Queen of Pop" statement is neutral. I did not say that she was the 'Queen of Pop', I said that she is commonly referred to as the 'Queen of pop', which is both veracious and unbiased. The media does refer to her as the "Queen of Pop", just as how Michael Jackson is known as the "King of Pop" or Britney Spears or Beyonce is known as "Pop Princesses". Ive provided a few average articles to show how the media is saturated with the title when referring to Madonna:
In addition, she is featured in the "Biggest-selling female musician" article, so I dont see any problem with it being mentioned in the introduction. Its also in the intro of the Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion article, among other artists. Journalist 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, be careful of weasel words — but also, Googling "queen of pop" gives (just in the first two pages of links): Kylie Minogue, Madonna, Marcia Hines, Aretha Franklin, Elton John (sounds reasonable), and Diana Ross. Minogue & Madonna just about tie for most mentions. When more than one person is referred to by a title, esepcially an evaluative one) should we not mention this if we're to achieve a NPoV? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


In my opinion, absolutely not. The name reflects her stature as a popular recording artist, but I don't think anybody would mistake it for an official title - as far as I'm aware, there is no country called Pop of which she could possibly be queen. To say that Madonna is sometimes called the Queen of Pop is a simple statement of fact, and the fact that the title has been applied humourously to Elton John has absolutely nothing to do with it. Frankly, I think that inserting references to validate the assertion is already labouring the a very minor point, and saying that she is "one of a number of singers" so referred to destroys the flow of the text.

This is really very silly. Somebody wanted to say that Madonna is sometimes called the Queen of Pop. She IS sometimes called the Queen of Pop. Anyone who hasn't been trapped in a tower in an isolated forest on the top of a mountain for twenty years knows that she's sometimes called the Queen of Pop - yet somebody requested that it be demonstrated that she's sometimes called the Queen of Pop, and this has been done. Now, in the interest of style, I've reverted this back to something like the original form. If you can't abide the unqualified Queen of Pop reference, I really think the best thing would be to remove it altogether. TheMadBaron 14:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you strongly object to the version I've included? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It was fine. Then you had to go meddle with it.

I propose "She is universally acknowledged to be the undisputed queen of pop by everyone, everywhere, except Mel Etitis." How's that for NPoV? TheMadBaron 11:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Pop

I'm more than a little bemused. TheMadBaron (talk · contribs) included a claim that Madonna was known as the Queen of Pop; I pointed out that she wasn't alone in this, and that that should be mentioned in order to retain an NPoV. After resisting that for a while, he seems to have given up, and in what looks like a fit of pique now keeps deleting any mention of the title — as though if it can't be there on his terms it mustn't be there at all. Now, personally I don't care who is or isn't given that sort of silly title but, first, we should get things right, and secondly, if there's a relevant fact it should be included. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. For one thing, I did not originally include the 'claim'. For another, I have removed it precisely once, when it was reverted to the longer version for no apparent reason (the article is already longer than it should be). This has nothing to do with 'pique'; it is my belief that the article reads better with the statement ommitted altogether than it does with your version, which labours a very minor point in what is supposed to be the summary of an article which is already too long. There is no good reason (as far as I can see) not to include the shorter version.
I have not given up resisting the idea that it is necessary to mention the fact that others have also been called the Queen of Pop, which I contend to be utterly irrelevant, but if you really must include it, why don't you just add a footnote?
At this stage, I'm quite happy with the current version, "Some have even called her the "Queen of Pop", but if you continue to revert to the longer version, I may very well delete it again. That would be a shame, since it's fine as it is, but personally I don't care either way. TheMadBaron 07:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. I was thinking opf these: [7], [8], and [9]. And now, of course, anothr one.
  2. My version uses nine more words than the one that you approved ([10]); I doubt that that will have much effect on the article.
  3. Your position that it doesn't matter whether the claim that implies that she's unique in being given the title is true or false might be taken two ways. First, none of this matter; she's a here-today, gone-tomorrow pop singer, and the article grossly overstates her importance outside the ephemeral world of pop music. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether this particular claim is accurate or not. While agreeing with the former, Is till think that we should get things right when we can; with regard to the latter, I utterly disagree. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm more than a little bemused by these novel interpretations of yours....
  1. You said "After resisting that for a while, he seems to have given up, and in what looks like a fit of pique now keeps deleting any mention of the title", and yet your examples show me deleting any mention of the title, as I said, precisely once.
  2. I expect it will increase the length of the article by nine words. The article's already too long. We definitely need to start going in the other direction....
  3. I have never claimed "that it doesn't matter whether the claim that implies that she's unique in being given the title is true or false." My contention is that the claim does not imply that she's unique in being given the title. I would not agree that "she's a here-today, gone-tomorrow pop singer" (she's been enormously successful for more than twenty years), nor would I suggest that it "doesn't matter whether this particular claim is accurate or not." It is accurate. Does it bother you at all that you appear to be the only person who doesn't see that? TheMadBaron 11:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me in the least, considering that it's only you and an anon on the other side of the issue. I;m taking this to RfC, in order to get some outside views. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone will care? :D
You initially described the claim as sounding "both temporally limited and tendentious." Why are you now so determined both to make it and (unneccesarily, IMO) qualify it? TheMadBaron 15:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Because my rewritten version is neither temporally limited nor tendentious. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just verbose. And you haven't answered the question. TheMadBaron 09:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I just happened on this and it made me think of this article in particular. I quote from Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources under When you add content, "Avoid weasel phrases like, "Some people say..." Instead, find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion." Remind you of the last line of the heading? --Kim Nevelsteen 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the issue is citations, in fact (lots have been given, above). Nobody denied that she's been called this, and nobody denies that a number of other singers (again, see above) have been called it too. The only issue is whether we should say so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the issues are whether we should say so if the statement doesn't need qualifying (why not?), whether the statement does need qualifying (IMO, no, it doesn't) and whether we should say so if the statement does need qualifying (IMO, no, we shouldn't). TheMadBaron 09:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

queen of pop dispute

i think it is stupid saying that she is "one of a small number of singers refered to as the queen of pop"....i think "she is commonly refered to as...the queen of pop" is better

kylie minogue queen of pop...... she is refered to as a pop proncess 99% of the time , its only die-hard fanboys that call kylie the queen of pop , the MEDIA does NOT call kylie or aretha frnaklin or whoever else the queen of pop , madonna is the only one who is always referred to as it , just because a google search shows that some fanboys call other artists the same thing , doesn;t mean that it makes it true , there can only be one queen of somthing , and everyone knows that she is the original one , the phrase was practically incented for her.....she was the 1st to be called that , and fans of other female artists only call their favourite artists the queen of pop because they are jealous of madonna's 23 year commerlial sucess

does areatha franklin even do pop music.....i thought it was soul music or somthing , plus aretha is not even around anymore , where madonna is , madonna has achieved more than all the otehr female artists mentiond in the google search put together , she is in the guinis book of records for the biggest selling female artist ever AND the most sucessful female artist ever....certainly worthy of the title queen of pop

is somone went around calling themselves the queen of england....and on a google search their picture came up....does it mean they are the queen of england????.....so why doesn this google search matter , madonna is referred to as the queen of pop 100% of the time , kylie is reffered to as the princess of pop 99.9% of the time (she isn't even sucessful outside of europe or australia except she had 2 american hits , one in 1987 and 2002....hmmm...very consistant) she deffinantly does not deserve to be given the same title as madonna who is sucessful worldwide for over 20 years ....and don;t get me started of aretha....queen of pop?????? i have never heared anyone call her that....queen of soul/motown , yes deffinantly , not pop

i just think that the phreae "she is commonly reffered to as the queen of pop" is more appropriate

I agree with all of the above. TheMadBaron 09:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that most of this is either false or irrelevant. What's false is the claim that the media doesn't call other singers "the queen of pop"; they do, and the Google hits are there to prove it (what individual editors happen to have heard is irrelevant, of course). Nor is it true that Madonna is always referred to in this way; I read, heard, and saw the news about her accident from a variety of radio, television, newspaper, and on-line sources, not one of which used the phrase. It's possible that music journalists always use the phrase (how tedious), but that's a different matter even if true.
What's irrelevant is any argument about the justification of the title in the different cases; we're not supposed to give our opinion, even assuming we had one shared opinion, only state the facts in a NPoV way. Implying that she is the only singer to be described in this way is false, and PoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is making any claim to the effect that the media doesn't call other singers "the queen of pop", nobody has made such a claim, and it seems highly unlikely that anybody would make such a claim. There is nothing false or misleading in a statement such as "Madonna has been reffered to as the queen of pop."
You might not discern the implication, but I assure that, as a native speaker, I do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker too. The supposed implication is a figment of your imagination. TheMadBaron 18:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Consider this - Bruce Springsteen has been known by the nickname "The Boss". Should we not be allowed to state such a fact in Wikipedia without also stating the obvious fact that other people have also been called "The Boss?" Can we not refer to George W. Bush as "The President" without pointing out that other people also have that title? Isn't it better just to omit such detail altogether than to burden Wikipedia with such trivialities? TheMadBaron 09:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant; first, "the Boss" as applied to Springsteen is a nickname, as you say yourself, whereas "Queen of Pop" is meant to be descriptive; secondly, without relativising it to a specific area, there's no contradiction in saying that two people are bosses — but two people can't be the Queen of something or somewhere in particular.
The other example is equally irrelevant; no-one else currently has the title "President of the U.S."; moreover, the way that the title is gained is significantly different.
I don't understand your obsession with this. You seem happy to include the "triviality" so long as it's presented as you want. If you can't have your way on that, then we have to exclude it altogether. That's not in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

YOU don't understand MY obsession with this? (Cough, splutter...)

Yes, you're quite right, I'm entirely happy to include this trivia so long as the point isn't laboured, and I'm equally happily not to include it. You are apparently intent on retaining your version, with no other options acceptable to you. You have yet to offer any justification of your claim that the statement "Madonna has been referred to as the queen of pop" is in some way misleading, and appear to completely disregard the fact that no-one else seems to see it that way. For now, I have stopped editing the article pending the outcome of this discussion, while you continue to revert to your preferred version. Tell me again about the spirit of Wikipedia.

I don't understand YOUR obsession with this.

Aretha Franklin is a soul singer, Kylie Minogue is an actress, and Elton John is a man. Now, go ask ten people at random who is referred to as the queen of pop, and see what they say. TheMadBaron 18:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I could argue with all of this (well, except for the Elton John bit), but it's irrelevant; as I said above, we're not concerned with justifying the claim, only reporting it. A number of people have been called the queen of pop by the media, and Madonna is one of them — so we say so. In what sense does that labour the issue? In what sense is it unacceptable? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

no, i don't know why you make such a big deal out of it, we (the fans) are not giving our opinion when we say "madonna is commonly reffered as the queen of pop" is not an opinion, is a fact. we are not saying she is the queen of pop, we are just stating a true fact, that she indeed is called that. this has nothing to do with opinions. when i read stuff on google where they say kylie is the queen of pop is just stupid. there are phrases like "kylie our queen of pop" they are not saying the queen they are just saying she is symply their queen. Madonna is my queen of pop, but what's different here is that not only fans know her as the queen of pop, but the majority of the population of the world know her as that.

I am just dying to add my two cents to this, sorry in advance. Although I have been somewhat up to date with madonna's latest tricks, I can't call myself a down right fan. I have some of her music, but I have never heard anyone call her the queen of pop. And unfortunately, at the danger of sparking more controversy, after Mickael was called the King of Pop, I wouldn't want Madonna to be ranked in the same category. --Kim Nevelsteen 20:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You'll be glad to know that "In March 1991, the King and Queen of Pop - Michael Jackson and Madonna - attended attended the Academy Awards together. They made a striking, if odd, couple. (Never had she spent time with a man with whom she had less in common.)" J. Randy Taraborrelli (2001, p.90). Madonna: An Intimate Biography. ISBN 0743227093. Hyacinth 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny how that "King of Pop" isn't on Michael Jackson's article.--Kim Nevelsteen 21:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

She is also referred to by many people other than her fanbase, also in the media, as the queen of pop. And not just in the 1970's i heard them say it on the news when they reported on the Live 8 concerts. I also think the edit Hyacinth made resolves this issue. TheQz 00:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Woohoo! We now have-
"She is one of a small number of singers who have been referred to as the "Queen of Pop". According to MTV, "Madonna has reigned unchallenged as the undisputable Queen of Pop" while fellow star Kylie Minogue assserts that "Madonna is the Queen. I am the Princess. I'm quite happy with that" (Mehmet 2004, p.38)."
Hmmm.... In what sense does that labour the issue? Well, the summary is no longer a summary, is it, more than half of it being taken up with this irrelevent waffle. Mel should be happy....
"I could argue with all of this" says Mel, and I don't doubt it. I think Mel could argue with just about anything, but Aretha really is a soul singer, I'm afraid.... and okay, I suppose it's debatable whether Kylie is much of an actress, and it's even debatable whether Elton's much of a man, but even Kylie knows that Madonna's the Queen of pop.....
I give up. I'm just not as interested in common sense prevailing in this issue as Mel is in forcing an opinion. I've got a life. A couple of people are obviously hellbent on ruining a potentially very good article, so I think I'll just leave you lot to your edit war now. Enjoy.
I never much liked Madonna anyway. TheMadBaron 09:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. No-one has denied that she has been called this – that's not the issue – so Hyacinth's piece of evidence clears up nothing.
  2. A great chunk of (unnecessary text) has been added by others, but TheMadBaron manages to use it as an attack on me. Fascinating. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I just wonder, what is your problem, TheMadBaron??
And I think the introduction is fine now the way it is. It illustrates that even fellow artists have a high regard of Madonna, not just fans or whoever else TheQz 10:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


I didn't attack you, Mel, you're imagining things again. I said you should be happy. That's not an attack, it's an observation. If I wanted to attack you, I'd probably call you an opinionated, argumentative, patronising idiot. Or something. :) TheMadBaron 12:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You said that I should be happy because the summary is full of irrelevant waffle. You've now again tried the ploy of offering personal insult while pretending not to. You're sailing very close to the wind, in fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry. After your having accused me of a "fit of pique" and "obsession", having ascribed actions to me that I didn't commit, having ascribed opinions to me that I don't hold, and having asserted the superiority of your interpretation over mine on the grounds that you were a "native speaker", and then accusing ME of attacking YOU, I assumed that you were up for a little playful banter. Now I see that you can dish it out, but you can't take it, I shall desist. TheMadBaron 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey you two, remember Madonna? You both have talk pages if you wish to have discussions not related to this article. Thanks. Hyacinth 21:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I've never added a comment to a discussion page before and am by no means a huge Madonna fan but I feel appalled and repelled. Never in my five years of internet use have I met a web poster as ignorant or insular as Mel Etitis. How far is your head stuck up your ass? You are so concerned with trying to keep a NPOV you've lost all sense of reality. Madonna has ALWAYS been considered the "Queen of Pop" by the majority, if not all, of media outlets. Every sector of the media from Fox News to BBC to Le Monde to Sydney Herald use this title. Kylie Minogue, Aretha Franklin or Elton John have seldom, if EVER, been referred to by using this moniker. How can "commonly referred to as Queen of Pop" be weasel terms when it is factual? Type in "Queen of Pop" + "Aretha Franklin" into Google and 716 results are mentioned. For "Queen of Pop" + "Kylie Mingoue", 922 results are presented, most of them are articles which feature Madonna anyway and are using the QOP moniker to describe Ciccone. When typing in "Madonna" + "Queen of Pop" you are left with SEVENTEEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED RESULTS. So, a further remit of the introduction by you would seriously jeopardise your validity as a Wikipedia member. I am NOT attacking you and apologise if some of the above is a little harsh (I shouldn't get so worked up over a stupid title anyway) but the extremes people go for NPOV just angers me, much in the same vein as the current political-correctness depate in British society. I respect your work here in Wiki and admire the clean-up job you did on one of the most-frequently changed and controversial articles on Wiki! Chill...

Ah, yes... that's exactly the sort of thing I'd have said... if I could be bothered. TheMadBaron 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes — a rant full of personal abuse, and complaining that I'm trying to uphold the Wikipedia policy of NPoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's even on the first first edit available... Har har... [11]--Kim Nevelsteen 14:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If I described Elvis as "The King", do you think Mel would edit to mention Aethelred the Unready? TheMadBaron 20:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
You know, Mel, I think you're either going to have to explain to us all how this is a POV issue, call for independent arbitration, or resign yourself to reverting this three times a day for the rest of your life. TheMadBaron 21:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. I've already dealt with that sort of non-analogical analogy, at length.
  2. I've also already explained that. Still, let's try again:
  3. If I say that Dizzy Gillespie has been described as the father of bebop, that's true, but it makes it sound as though he's the only one; if I say that he's one of the people who have been thus described I give the same information, but I put it in a context that makes it more accurate and neutral. Similarly, to say that Madonna has been called the queen of pop is true, but it makes it sound as if she's the only one; if I say that she's one of the people to have been thus described I give the same information, but I put it in a context that makes it more accurate and neutral. I find it difficult to see how anyone but a fan blinded by partisanship (for examples, see above) can't see that. We don't write as though we were fans blinded by partisanship, and when editors do, the duty of other editors is to step in and make the article more NPoV. That's what I did. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


I don't think we're ever going to agree about this, but I do appreciate the effort to explain your position without resorting to thinly disguised personal jibes, and so long as that continues, I shall endeavour to respond in kind. To be honest, I don't think the "small number of blah blah blah" version is quite so unspeakably awful as to warrant all this attention, but the entertainment value of your responses to other's opinions certainly does. Even so....
I don't accept that "to say that Madonna has been called the queen of pop.... makes it sound as if she's the only one". If the statement is true, it's just true, and I don't see why any such falsehood would be inferred, or why anyone would think that any such falsehood would be inferred. Furthermore, if that statement is, as I believe, entirely accurate and neutral, then I don't see how additional (and, I think, irrelevant) information can possibly make it any more accurate and neutral. I still think that the article reads better with the information omitted altogether than it does with what I see as a rather clumsy attempt to clarify it (notwithstanding that I don't think it needs clarification). Above all, though, I think that majority consensus on the issue should win over one or two editors isolated opinions.... and I think they are just opinions.
Partisanship honestly doesn't enter into it. I think 'Dear Jesse' was really rather good, and 'American Pie' was unspeakably awful, but love her or hate her as you may, I've been doing a pretty good job of ignoring the queen of pop.... until now, anyway. TheMadBaron 09:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

BEST SELLING FEMALE ARTIST EVER

I'm getting pretty sick of a certain jealous Mariah fan sniffing around here altering content to their liking. Madonna was named BEST SELLING FEMALE ARTIST of all time by Guinness. I'm sorry if that threatens your Mariah fandon because you desperately want it to be her, but you don't get to decide the facts!


We do not want to turn this into an 'edit war'. Guinness did not confirm anything. How are they supposed to know, do they have an official organisation that tracks worldwide sales? No they dont. They say "most successful". This could point to the fact that she has alot of records ('n' top 10, top 20 etc) and very successful tours and a successful record label. However, there is no proof that she is the best selling and its a fallacy to say that she is based on that Guinness statement. According to World music awards, who say that they thoroughly investigate worldwide sales, (see their website) Mariah Carey is the best selling recording artist of the last decade (90s) and the best selling pop female artist of the millennium. Celine Dion's website claims that she is the best selling. See, everyone says something. Anyway, lets not get into that. We have to remain neutral here and since no one knows the answer, we just have to refer to Madonna, Celine, Carey,etc as 'one of the best selling'. Who knows, maybe its not even any of them. Journalist (talk · contribs)

  1. It's Barbara Streisand] ([12]; no, it's
  2. Ginette Reno; no, it's
  3. Dido; no, it's
  4. Shania Twain; no, it's
  5. Enya; no, it's
  6. Mariah Carey; no, it's
  7. Norah Joners ([13]; no, it's
  8. Celine Dion; etc., etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. However, could you read the World Music Awards article. It has a couple info on the issue. journalist (talk · contribs)

I bet you were surprised by some of the names, though (I was — and I'd never heard of Ginette Reno). And yes, the "World Music Awards" seem pretty authoritative ([14]). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If Guinness said that Madonna has sold the most of any other female artist, then I'd be inclined to believe them. It's their job to check out facts for their records, and confirm data. I really doubt that anyone here is any more of an authority on the matter to be able to say that they are wrong. --Incognito9810 05:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Except the "World Music Awards", which actually deal with music! Why are Madge fan's always so pissed off about Mariah's success? Maybe it's because they are jealous that she can SING and WRITE SONGS (without stealing them from Belgian songwriters).
I wouldn't be so cocky if I were a Mariah fan, because Mariah has been accused of (and sued for) plagerism (over both lyrics and music) a handful of times throughout her career. --Dtowng 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that they seem to have said "most popular" rather than "best-selling". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The World Music Award awards diamond awards for 100M albums sold and bases that on estimates. They are a charity and collect data as best as they can. Record companies deal with selling records anyway. The WMA never mentioned a 'best-selling' and are eager to disclaim the rumor (their website does not mention it, the infamous 'best selling artist of the millemnium' is not on the WMA website, but on the Monte Carlo Tourist office Site...) Some ertists claim they are the best-selling, then declare less than others. The ONLY female artist whose record company has declared more than 200M albums is Madonna (and that was last year). Island can claim what they want for Mariah, but they still have declared 150M albums (declared just about 160M last week actually). Taken Record company numbers (not their mottos), Madonna is the leading artist (with at least 40M albums to distance her from the second contender). The fact that Mariah's sales then don't even add up to 2/3rds of what she declaers is a matter between the second best selling (Celine) third (Whitney) and fourth (Mariah) (whichever order yoou wish to put them, but this would be the order if we add up known record sales worldwide, obviously not total, but while for most artists they approximate their company's declarations, for Mariah, they drop enormously, by 7M per major album)... Let us remember that Mariah's best selling album sold 2M in the EU and 7.5 in the US... Turn the numbers round and you get a recent 'average' Madonna album.

NO

Journalist, you are mistaken. This is a myth: Mariah Carey was NEVER awarded the 'best-selling female artist of the millemnium' by the World Music Awards. Can you tell me where that is stated on tehir website? Nowhere. She was given a 'Legend Award' which is not realated to sales and has been given to 20 other artists already. just check the WMA website. The prize relating to saled is the 'Diamond Award' which means 100M albums sold. The Website is very, very clear about the meaning of the awards, and you can ask their legal office for clarification, and you will see how annoyed they are that the 'Legend Award' has been manipulated so badly by the Mariah propaganda machine. Her only claim to that title is a complete and utter fabrication, and every time I try to say it, my post gets deleted. Just check the website now.

Superjob on cleanup!

Just came back to the page today, saw all the links now under 'See Also' - lays out really nice! Compliments to whoever made that edit. -- Barrettmagic 22:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you; it's good to know that I can do something right... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Rain Video

Article says that the video for Rain was shot in black and white and then colorized frame-by-frame. I believe this was actually done for the video Fever. I am only speaking from viewing the videos, however, the video for Rain appears to have normal colors, while the video for Fever has dramatic colorization in it. Can someone confirm this?


The video for "Rain" was indeed shot in black and white with each frame individually colourised in post production. If you pause the video at any point during a close-up of Madonna's face there are two ways in which you can see this effect more prominently than anywhere else; her eyes and her eyebrows. Madonna's naturally blue/green eyes appear a shade of blue far deeper than could be expected given any lighting conditions whatsoever. Also, the eyebrows appear as if "airbrushed" on. If you look closely there is no individual hairs within the eyebrows. This is another sign of the colourisation to pixels.

My last edit summary

I cited the wrong MoS page in my edit summary; I should have cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Madonna pages

Hi, I see someone deleting a lot of Madonna singles pages and a lot of information on Madonna album pages (writers, catalog numbers).

American Pie (Madonna song) Don't Cry for Me Argentina (Madonna song)

Is it normal here? Or the person who does it simply hates Madonna? I think a lot of people have taken time to write them or to find this information and its being deleted so simply. It's not fair.

A new Wiki-reader.

don't worry too much about it, just as easy as something can be deleted it also can be restored. once someone notices the vandalism, it will be restored pretty fast. Boneyard 14:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't recreate those pages. Neither one is a Madonna song. They are both Madonna recordings. Information about Madonna's covers of those songs can go in the articles about American Pie (song) and Don't Cry For Me Argentina. Jkelly 16:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Madonna's birth name

I'm quite sure Madonna wasn't born with Ritchie as her surname - it's her wedded name. I think someone updated this when she was married, yet didn't notice that it was preceded with 'Born...'.

I'm new to this so I'll leave it to someone more experienced to edit.

Madonna Louise Ciccone is her birth name (Veronica is only her catholic confirmation name) - and the birth name must be placed in the lead paragraph in a biography. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) --Red-Blue-White 20:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Sales: Over 200 million albums

A genuine global superstar, packing stadiums worldwide with her astonishing stage spectacles, Madonna, a multi-Grammy winner, has made music history with international sales of over 200 million albums. Her enormous influence has spanned 33 number one dance hits; five chart topping albums and 46 Top 40 singles and 20 MTV Video Music Awards. http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=97678 --Red-Blue-White 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you paste this here? Jkelly 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Because it was asked in the article (see history). It's better discussed here than in the article. --Red-Blue-White 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah. By User:Journalist. You might want to check out WP:CITE for instructions on how to reference articles. While it's good to discuss things in Talk pages, it's not an ideal way to reference. Jkelly 00:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It's only an additional reminder because some people change the numbers very often. The reference is linked at the right place at the article. --Red-Blue-White 01:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense. Jkelly 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I hope so! ;) --Red-Blue-White 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

living in london.....?

the line that states that she lives in london with guy and her 2 children is WRONG, she lives PRIMARALY in wiltshire (in that grand old country estate we hear so much about) , witch is NOT in london. Americans always say she lives in london because they think that london is the only place in the uk for some reason. and saying thats she lives in wilshire would not mean anything to anyone who is not from the uk so people always wrongly say she lives in london, when she doesn't. i think its should say "she lives in wiltshire" or "she lives just outside london, in wilshire" (even though wiltshire isn't really just outside london, it makes more sence for people who are not from the uk)


Sorry, but Madonna DOES primarily live in London (by the Marble Arch end of Oxford Street) and her Ashcombe Estate in Wiltshire is a holiday home.

What's Madonna's correct civil name?

  • Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone Ritchie?
  • Madonna Ciccone Ritchie?
  • Madonna Louise Ritchie?
  • Madonna Ritchie?

Please name sources - what's her correct name since her marriage. --Red-Blue-White 17:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I did already, if you follow the link under the previous discussion under the heading "Madonna Louise Ritchie." According to her husband, her full name is Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone. There seems to have been a misunderstanding among some editors here that women are automatically named after their husbands upon marriage, which is not the case under British or American law, and I guess they kept adding the name based on this assumption. AFAIK, Madonna has used the name Ritchie only jokingly, such as on a chair labeled "Mrs Ritchie" and once as "M Ritchie" on a donor list, perhaps for reasons of relative anonymity. ProhibitOnions 23:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer

It's Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie. Veronica is not technically her anagraphical name, though it is for the Catholic Church.

Image:Madonna 008.jpg and Image:Madonna0605.jpg

Well, I must say, this is rather odd. An anon edits the Wikimedia Commons page for Image:Madonna0605.jpg, replacing the {{PD}} tag with "uploaded by a fan", and just minutes later on Wikipedia, User:Red-Blue-White switches the image with Image:Madonna 008.jpg with the summary "The picture also wasn't PD. It was uploaded by a fan". Regardless of this puzzling series of events, Wikipedia policies on copyrighted images state that they shouldn't be used if a suitable "free" alternative has been located. We can't claim "fair use" on the photo with the pink background as we've found one which is public domain, in other words as free as you can get (also, we can't claim "fair use" on the previous photo as it doesn't have any source or copyright information, but's that's another matter). Extraordinary Machine 20:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the Commons description when you originally put the top-hat picture up. The original description is "Madonna Source: courtesy of the magazine publisher, Meredith Corporation". That's not really enough information to ascertain that the license is "public domain". If, however, it can be proven that the image really is a free one, Extraordinary Machine is absolutely correct that we must not substitute a copyright-infringing one in its place. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 20:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
This person (Peter-m) tried to put this picture on the german Madonna article some weeks ago. It's not accepted there because he uploaded it without mentioning a source and without a proof that it's public domain. He wasn't able to proof its origin. So it's better to remove rejected picture. --Red-Blue-White 20:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I did a little hunting for the image's origins, but didn't come up with much. I tagged it as having incomplete license information at the Commons, which it does. The uploader has one month (!) to provide its copyright information. At this point, I'd be more comfortable saying "We know that this image infringes upon copyright, but we believe it is fair use" than to use the top-hat image and claim it is in the public domain. Jkelly 21:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It's better to put any other picture on the site (maybe a "live picture" with fair use) because this picture is already rejected at the German Wikipedia. btw. it's a weird picture and there's no reason to prefer it. --Red-Blue-White 21:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The upload looks genuine to me, the user didn't make any other contributions other than to upload the photo [15] and stated when the picture was removed Der Urheber der Darstellung gestattet die Verwendung und Weiterverbreitung des Bildes mit oder ohne Veränderung unter der Bedingung, dass weiterverbreitete Kopien die Nennung seiner Urheberschaft enth which babelfishes as The author of the representation permits the use and further spread of the picture further with or without change on the condition that spread copies further the denomination of its authority enth which sounds like a gfdl or cc to me. It isn't the sort of pic a fan would choose if they were going to lie about a pic being free imo. Arniep 21:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The user (Peter-m) who uploaded it, tried several times to put it in the German Madonna article but they didn't accept it because the user didn't want to give a proof of legal origin. This picture is taken from the English Vogue and not public domain. It's uploaded by a fan - everyone can upload pictures at commons.
This picture has been removed three times at the German Wikipedia in September 2004 [16] because it's not public domain. --Red-Blue-White 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It was removed because the uploader didn't understand about gfdl or gnu. I still think the picture was legitimately donated, the user uploaded it to commons on June 14, 2005 but didn't get round to putting it on a Wikipedia page till September. That doesn't come across as someone trying to be dishonest to me. Arniep 22:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Only the photograph or publisher can release a picture for public domain. I told (Peter-m) that he is not allowed to post uncommon pictures and he accepted it. --Red-Blue-White 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC) The best way to find free Madonna pictures is to ask a fan who has been at a concert and took some photos. Ask him to upload his pictures at Commons - with correct and legal license. --Red-Blue-White 23:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

On June 14th, Commons user Peter-m uploaded the top-hat photo to the Commons. On September 18th, de:User:Peter-m put up an image labelled "Confessions On A Dancefloor.jpg" (the album cover) [17]. It was reverted (de: is much stricter about image usage than en:) by de:User:Ken-nedy [18]. Peter-m reverts later with an edit summary "with copyright" [19]. de:User:Ken-nedy reverts that (remember, we are talking about the album cover, not the top-hat image). Peter-m reverts again, this time with a cut-and-paste of the German version of the PD-self template's text in the edit summary as he inserts the album cover [20]. Ken-nedy reverts that edit with some scolding. This doesn't inspire confidence that the Commons user Peter-m is clear on copyright law. I should mention that de:User:Kennedy asserts that they painted this image themselves. Jkelly 00:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's a little confusing. It's a fact that no picture gets legal or public domain if it's uploaded at Commons. :Only the original rightholder can make it public domain. If Peter-m is not the photograph of the pictures he uploaded at Commons (or is the publisher of the pictures) these uploads are illegal. In the USA there's a "fair use law" - in Germany the law is very strict and there's no "fair use" for pictures. That's the reason why they need a license proof for for every picture. One reason: In Germany they sell the Wikipedia as cd and bookversion and need the rights for every picture. Because they didn't find a free Madonna picture there's a painted one (believe in me they would prefer the hat image if it would be possible).
It's difficult to find free Madonna pictures - these are mostly private pictures by fans. It's clear that Peter-m didn't photograph Madonna and wanted to decorate a Wikipedia article. Even the photograph can't decide alone to publish a picture at Commons: The photographed person must give an agreement too (if the person isn't photographed at a public event). The top hat image is taken by Lorenzo Agius for "Ladies Home Journal" and the album pictures by Steven Klein. --Red-Blue-White 01:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

On November 18, 2005, a Belgian judge seated in Mons decided that Madonna's number Frozen was plagiarism. According to the judge, Frozen is plagiarism because 4 bars of the song are identical to "Ma vie fout le camp" composed by Salvatore Acquaviva from Mouscron. The judge subsequently forbade the sale and playing of the song on the Belgian territory. The judge also ordered Warner, Emi and Sony to publish and spread the decision within fifteen days to various media outlets on pain of a penalty of 125.000 euro for non compliance with a court order. I've got a dutch language source for this [21] and if you google, you'll find several English language news articles dating from May announcing the lawsuit. Could someone keep an eye for English language newsarticles about this plagiarism when they come out?

I moved the plagiasm part to the Frozen site. --Red-Blue-White 16:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

She does live in London - at least part of the time there

Madonna now lives principally in Britain, with a house in London and a country manor in Dorset. She is a keen horse-woman and wearer of Barbour jackets. From the Observer 2005/11/20 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,13887,1644648,00.html --213.190.195.103 16:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, she does, what a question, just go to Oxford Street on sat afternoon and you'll see her biking along+ caqn meet at at the pub (2 opubs around there) + her kids go to school in London. Who can doubt that? Is this a let's doubt ecerything page?

Identifying Madonna as "Italian American"

Just a note: in the video for "Truth or Dare" she describes herself as "Italian American." She says, "I'm an Italian American and proud of it." In the video for Papa Don't Preach she wears a shirt that says, "Italians Do It Better." [22] And she has described her birth name -- Madonna Ciccone -- as being "very Italian." And the video for her second concert tour was filmed in Turin, Italy and is titled "Ciao Italia: Madonna Live from Italy." [23] I think it's justified to refer to her as "Italian American," first of all because she is. Second of all, because she herself has referred to herself as that. Thirdly, Italian American and Italian culture and references have been present throughout her entire career. The video to her first #1 song, Like a Virgin, featured Madonna performing in Venice, Italy. [24] -- Andrew Parodi 22:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at other decent encyclopedia's like Britannica you will see they always state nationality not ethnicity-nationality. She may well identify as Italian American but you do not know she does not also identify as French or Franco American. Any xxx American is an ethnic identifier not a nationality, the nationality should be placed at the top of an article. Arniep 23:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. I created a subsection about her background as an Italian American. Hopefully, it will be allowed to remain. You can't get more "Italian" than a name like "Madonna Ciccone." This is an important part of her life. She was primarily raised by her Italian American father, one Silvio Ciccone. -- Andrew Parodi 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • By the way, if we're going to get technical, labeling Madonna as an "American" is not really that accurate. "American" describes everyone from Canada all the way down to Tierra del Fuego in Argentina. If we're going to be technical, we should refer to her as "a citizen of the United States of America." Further, I believe she currently has dual citizenship, so perhaps she should be referred to as a "a citizen of the United States with dual citizenry in the United Kingdom," or something. -- Andrew Parodi 03:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Hi, I am not getting technical, I am just trying to follow the standard encyclopedial rules. Having a section on her being Italian American and any influence it has on her career is fine by me. American is an accepted word on Wikipedia and in most places for citizens of the United States. People from Canada are described as Canadians, people from Mexico Mexicans etc. You are correct she is a British citizen due to her marriage so she should be described as British-American. Arniep 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
          • British-American is not correct, even if she has taken UK citizenship (has she?). A British-American would be an American of British descent; she's actually the opposite!

Please see Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Jkelly 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

        • Yes, it's true that here in the US and on Wikipedia it's accepted to describe a citizen of the US as "American." In other North American and South American countries, however, they don't really use that term. In Argentina, for example, they refer to us as "Norteamericanos." -- Andrew Parodi 22:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
She may identify as an Italian American, as she has said, but technically, she is American. "American" to the rest of the world, including Canada, means, "from the United States of America." "American" is the accepted term, and Madonna is very much an American. In regards to her name, she was named after her mother, Madonna Fortin. Ms. Fortin wasn't Italian American at all. She was French Canadian. The name Madonna, in this context, is French. Not Italian. I wonder how many people are gonna be mad at me now. (No offense, but you Madonna fans are a fiesty bunch.) (A Wanderer)

Totally Disputed

No wonder the article is a former featured article. "Madonna-lovers" have turned this page in to a fanpage for the singer. Firstly,

she has been proclaimed the best-selling female recording artist of all time by the Guinness World Records. In a 2005 statement, her label Warner Bros. said she has sold over 200 million albums

Now, who has said that Madonna is the best selling? Guinness? no they did not. Do not misquote the record book. (this is an example of the factual accuracy part)

Also included are POVd and misleading phrases like

With her new album, Madonna further distances herself from competition (such as Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and Whitney Houston) as the world's biggest selling and most successful female artist of all time.

This article is a mess; the introduction to the last paragraph has turned into a fangush, and it needs to be contained. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First we have to remove the album pictures and album headlines. The Madonna article should be a biography and no discography. The best is to reverse it (maybe 4-8 weeks). --Red-Blue-White 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I think remove the album pictures is completely stupid because this article is not a discography at all! But Madonna's carreer needs to be divided in several periods (because it is well known that concerning Madonna, from an album to another, everything changes, style, musical influences...etc). So, the pictures only represent a period of madonna professinal and personal life.

The guiness said madonna is the best sucessful female solo artistnot selling: [25] maybe someone just spelled it wrong. This sentence "With her new album, Madonna further distances herself from competition (such as Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and Whitney Houston) as the world's biggest selling and most successful female artist of all time". and the guiness thing were already deleted. I think someone should erase the warning now. And the album pictures should remain it's not a discography, it just symbolize the several periods of madonna's career--Hotwiki 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Seems to have been toned down. Now, if there are no objections, Ill remove the sign. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's wrong to remove the sign. The sign motivates to improve the article. Without it everything goes into the wrong direction and the article is getting worse every day. The sign should be removed when the article is much better. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article --Red-Blue-White 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, a sign can always be put back, but at the moment, the article is not biased and inaccurate. What I suggest is that you nominate it for an article improvement drive or something, but the {{totallydisputed}} sign does not fit. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I meant the article improvement drive. The only I thing I would change are the many discography details and the USA POV. --Red-Blue-White 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This article keeps changing! The fact that Madonna is the best-selling female artist of all time should be without doubt. No other woman ghas the same tally, now, if we stick to facts and record company declarations, 200M albums sold and 75 (93.5) singles is enough to place her ahead of every contender by at leat 60 million (Mariah Carey's own company declares 165+50=215). If we want to take 'headlines' and forced prsentations on TV shows, the3n there are 20 artists or so that have been named best-selling, even Diana Ross was recently introduced as the 'best-selling female artist in history' on a TV show in the UK (she said it wasn't true straight away, bless her). The fact that COAD is distancing Madonna from the 'contenders' is just a matter of basic arithmetics. COAD is selling at more than twice the rate of The Emancipation of Mimi, having sold 6 million copies in two months, and Hung Up is heading for its 4th million record sold, which means that Madonna';s sold in a bit more than two months what Mariah has in a year.

Madonna Living in London

Madonna DOES primarily live in London (near the Marble Arch end of Oxford Street) and her Ashcombe Estate is a holiday home.

she seems to refer to ashcome as her 'proper' home


IFPI - Let's wait for a direct source

"Biggest Selling Female of the World according to the IFPI (Internationl Federation of Phongraphic Industry) with worlwide sales of 275 million records."

As much as I'd love to put this whole "best selling female" thing to rest (big Madonna fan here), does anyone really know how IFPI tabulates their figures? And though these numbers were posted on a bunch of fan sites, I have yet to see a direct source from the IFPI website. In the interest of responsible wiki'ing, can we please wait to put the above quote until we have a direct source link? (i.e., not a link to DrownedMadonna.com) It's not like I'm saying this is incorrect info - just that it doesn't mean much if we can't show proof. Please don't just put the IFPI language back in because of blind fandom. This is supposed to be a place to get Madonna information, not spin. Zombie1

  • seems fair to me, let's just wait. i have seen it talked about on TV but let's wait for the source. it will come.
  • Ok you can find the information on Madonna's official website www.madonna.com
  • Yes, but madonna.com often gets their information from fan sites rather than real sources. Since they don't post a direct link either, we should still wait. Zombie1
  • Reference now reflects that madonna.com is reporting the figure, not the IFPI (since there is no direct source link to IFPI). Compromise? I'd rather keep it out but if people are going to keep pasting it right back in, perhaps a common ground can be found. Zombie1
No "common ground " will be found. If people persist in including the info, the article will be barred from editing until the IFPI's official website is cited. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to step into the matter. The claim is false and nothing short of an absurdity. Firstly, the source is from madonna.com, not IFPI. I have searched IFPI's website, and there is no such information. I'm in the process of contacting one of their PR to confirm this.
Additionally, doesnt anyone realise that this is a complete rip off of List of best-selling music artists — before the revised version.
  • Compare
list @ Madonna.com to list of best selling music artist
The exact same format, names and order: "artists", "number of albums", "years active", and "genre". Here's a little joke. The list on madonna.com lists the sources as they appear on Wikipedia: (eg for the Beatles, theres the "Guinness/EMI estimate", and for others on the list, you can see the little numbers in superscript, serving as the sources.) If IFPI generated the list, why on earth would they use "Guinness estimate" as a source? As usual, this is just the work of Madonna fans falsely attributing a title to the singer. In the process, they have misquoted IFPI. Frankly, I hope they sue. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality / Objectivity

I was thinking we could keep a list of people's thoughts on how Madonna is portrayed in this article, and whether we are keeping with the Wiki spirit of staying neutral and objective. There's a lot of fluff in the article, and there are some issues that just go back and forth that perhaps we should discuss. I realize I'm new to this and that some may be laughing at the idea of an objective Madonna article, but it's worth a shot. Zombie1

  • If mentioning Madonna's Golden Globe win in the intro, should we not also mention her Razzie wins, or something that reflects that she is more panned than praised for her acting ability (how is getting a golden globe any more valid than getting a Razzie?). Will it give someone new to Madonna the one-sided impression that she is an award winning actress? Zombie1
  • The Warner Bros. press release states that Madonna has sold 200 Million albums, not 275 or 200 and 75 singles. I'm not sure why people feel the need to contradict the number when its source link is clearly in front of them. Zombie1
A Golden Globe is a serious award for an outstanding performance. A Razzie is a fun-award (last winners are George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld). That Madonna won the Golden Globe for Comedy/Musical (not Drama) reflects her acting ability perfect. The Razzies are mentioned in tha article. The intro can say that she's a disputed actress (she received good critics for "Susan" & :"Evita" and won the Theatregoers' Choice Theatre Award for the play "Up fpr Graps").
  • I'd argue that the Golden Globe is no more serious or prestigious of an award than the Golden Raspberry. They IMHO are both fluff awards voted on by the media. I see what you are saying though. We should just take out both award references and make it more general statement about her acting.Zombie1 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Madonna sold 200 million albums and 75 million singles. These numbers are not new and mentioned by the official site (275 mill. records). --Red-Blue-White 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... i think it's better to include a reference to the actual press release, or something more solid - maybe we should just take the reference out completely since it comes from the label and not a real source. I went on to her site and saw no reference of the 75 million single sales. Regardless of it being common knowledge, we should have a source. Zombie1 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be insensitive, and I know that a lot of hard work has been put into the article, but the intro is in a very, very poor condition. An intro is supposed to provide context and summarize the points that will be discussed in the article. This article, however, just list her awards and accomplishments (as if trying to prove that she is best-seller). It needs a complete rwerite. I assume that you guys want to get it to featured status. Try using the intro of other featured articles as models for this one. Two good examples are Kylie Minogue and Céline Dion.
  • How insensitive after all our hard work! (haha just kidding) No, really you're right. The intro sucks. I was reading it last night thinking it's total fluff, but was too busy working on other sections. The hard thing is mentioning Madonna's achievements without sounding like it's gushing. I'm still dealing with that on the album sections. But we should definitely change the intro to something that more summarizes the article than her awards and achievements. Thanks for the kylie and celine examples. I am also looking at the David Bowie article and will prepare an Overview to maybe go after the TOC (?). Zombie1 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • PS:An important note: try to keep anons from turning this into a fan-page.
  • PPS: Where she resides is not important to a music article. I suggest removing it. Ill try to do a little work on it later.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Madonna is more a popular figure at this point than a musical figure. I'd hardly refer to this as just a music article. Though you're right that mentioning her current residence isn't really necessary. Zombie1 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt your neutrality when you say "Madonna is more a popular figure at this point than a musical figure" - she can't sing and can't write songs? The new intro isn't a summary of the article - it's a joke. "Material Girl"? That's 20 years ago! At the moment I think your recent work on the article is heavy destructive. The Grammy and Golden Globe are the biggest awards in show business - they are essencial in the intro. --Red-Blue-White 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, take it easy, its a collaborative and time consuming process. It might not be the best right now, but I belive that we all can collaborate on a great intro in a matter of minutes. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What I mean: Of course this site is no Madonna fan site and some parts of this article are disputed - but this article isn't bad if it highlights the most successful points in a career - these points are the reasons because the person is/has been successful. The Golden Globe is for her appearence in a musical (she's a singer!) - there's no need to bold that "she can't act" in the intro (some good actors received a Razzie too - but that don't touches their career - or article). Her Razzies are funny trivia, but didn't affect her carreer like the Grammy or Golden Globe. The article mentions her Razzies and other awards. To be neutral doesn't mean to write something bad if you write something good. It means to show published facts and not opinions.
OK - let's try it again. Maybe we should make a list what the intro should include. --Red-Blue-White 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you find my work on the article "heavy destructive" but so far have only felt the need to comment on what i've written in the intro, which is, well, two sentences. You have nothing to say about the childhood, first album, LAV, or true blue sections i've spent hours working on. It seems to me you are just upset that the widely undisputed fact is that Madonna's acting performances have been more miss than hit. How else to highlight that than pointing out she's won awards on both sides of the spectrum? You certainly haven't given me an alternative, besides only leaving in only the positive stuff. I don't appreciate you saying I lack neutrality.. i've spent days working on this article, soliciting advice on neutrality and so far very few have had anything to say except for the IFPI and Razzie issues. I am just trying to make it less of a fluff piece, and invite any changes to what i've written if you feel i've made it such. I do not invite your negative attitude and lack of camaraderie, especially when you have relatively little contribute otherwise. Why don't you do a web search on recent Madonna articles. She is still quite often referred to as the material girl. Zombie1 22:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Heavy destructive" has been a wrong designation - sorry! You found my comment in the history (yesterday?) and I praised your work. Only the last changes (mostly the intro) have been a little bit too much/less. Your comments at this site sounded too anti-Madonna and not neutral. I contributed more in the past and did write the german Madonna article. My english is not perfect enough for writing bigger English parts so I watch from time to time and correct/clear some fan/hater stuff from this site. Be sure my attitude is not negative - I've been shocked by the latest intro. That's all. If someone changes that much in an article it can happen that some parts fail. That's human.
If Madonna is called Esther, Maddy, M or Material Girl it is not that important for the intro. An intro should be a summary of the most important parts and stations of a life - the article in short form. A Golden Globe is surely more important than a award for worst dressing or worst acting (but is mentioned in the article). You can't mention all awards in the intro - only the most important ones (Razzie, Theatre Goers Choice Awards or MTV Movie awards are known, but it's enough to list them in the article or the awards site). The intro is not the place for listing all awards - or judging if someone can sing or act. It's common that an intro is mainly focused on the most important/successful stations of an artist. The main acticle is big enough to list all flops. --Red-Blue-White 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro! --Red-Blue-White 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zombie1, thanks for your contributions in this article but because of you I think it's now very long and it's not good, you don't have to put every little thing that she say or do (because I'm hung up) and I'm going to start to clean it up, thanks--Hotwiki 04:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits, some are definitely appreciated (particularly some less-essential details - trust me, i could have added much more), but some other edits just take away from the flow of the article. The paragraph I put back in is supposed to highlight one of madonna's iconic career strategies and is important for establishing her love of controversy. You took out this paragraph but left in the paragraph that talks about her use of changing image as a career strategy, which i thought was confusing. Also, I understand how curt to-the-point sentences can be helpful, but don't you think they can also make for a bland read? I know my favorite wiki articles give you a little more than the information that is common knowledge, and add an air of historical or pop cultural perspective to the artist (who you may already be somewhat familiar with) - hence adding minor details about Nile Rogers and the sound of LAV, etc. any thoughts?Zombie1 05:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No, "cut to the point sentences" are not bland unless you make them. As an encyclopedia, articles should only provide general information. For more info, see Wikipedia:Summary style. Also guys, do not write '#1" or "#50". The correct way is "number one" or "number fifty". Number one to 100 are to be written out in words. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually this sentence "The Like A Virgin era proved to inaugurate several lasting features of Madonna's career. The ironic choice of title and theme of Like A Virgin would mirror a career trend that would continue well into the present day: manipulating the media and shocking her audience with controversy - a tactic that often caused Madonna's celebrity to overshadow her music." seems to be just a fan stuff to me and your adding too much information in some sections specially Like A Virgin which doesn't look good and unnecessary and there's a Like a Virgin article, you could add it there instead in this big article.--Hotwiki 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Singles

There does not seem to be any doubt that Madonna's sold in the range of 200M albums (WB declaration, breakdowns of sales, IFPI,... all point to about 200M), however, she's sold 93.5M singles, not 75 (75 was in 1999). Acttually, you will come to 93.5M if you round down every single to the nearest 100,000 copies, and with 60 singles, that is a few million more. But I'm not a nitpicker. Single sales are very precise, so there is very little doubt about it. Grand total? Almost 300M, and 300M for sure in a few months.

The problem with singles is that, despite the fact that sales data are much more easily accessible than for albums, nobody has bothered to add up the huge number of singles sales so far. http://www.absolutemadonna.com has a breakdown as do most Madonna websites and Wikipedia, and they all add up to 93.5/95 million.

  • But this is all unsubstantiated data. We shouldn't put it on an encyclopedia page unless there is some official source link, at least one from Warner Bros. (of which there is none). 93.5, 95, 75 Million... do any of you really know how many singles she has sold? Moreover, can any of you confirm that the figures you've found came from Warner Bros.? Because I've read several other figures in addition to these on various madonna fan sites. it all sounds very inflated to me. In the interest of keeping a neutral article (i.e. not an adoring fan page), one that has the most correct data possible, isn't it better to keep the singles data off until we have some more substantial proof? Zombie1 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes we ALLL know. Absolutemadonna.com has data from Warner Bros Brazil... Did you read my post? Moreover, record companies are quited on ALBUM SALES, as they escape counting (well, they are more difficult to count). Single sales are no mystery. Every single sold is declared, so, there is NO doubt about single sales. Anyway, you can contact Absolutemadonna.com, Warner Bros Brazil, check on their website: these are official figures released by Warner Bros, the fact that they did not add them up, well, that's another matter. Read the heading of this page: http://www.absolutemadonna.com/charts/worldwidesingles.shtml actually, I'll cut and paste it for you...


This information supplied by Warner Bros. Brazil demonstrates Madonna's amazing singles sales success around the world.

Everybody - 450,000 Burning Up - 300,000 Lucky Star - 750,000 Holiday - 1,500,000 Borderline - 1,350,000 Like A Virgin - 2,250,000 Material Girl - 1,440,000 Crazy For You - 2,275,000 Into The Groove - 1,500,000 Gambler - 600,000 Angel - 2,100,000 Dress You Up - 1,000,000 Love Don't Live Here Anymore - 250,000 Live To Tell - 1,590,000 Papa Don't Preach - 2,300,000 True Blue - 1,800,000 Open Your Heart - 1,500,000 La Isla Bonita - 1,400,000 Who's That Girl - 1,650,000 Causing A Commotion - 1,300,000 The Look Of Love - 500,000 Spotlight - 350,000 Like A Prayer - 4,200,000 Express Yourself - 1,650,000 Cherish - 1,250,000 Oh Father - 1,000,000 Dear Jessie - 350,000 Keep It Together - 1,000,000 Vogue - 5,900,000 Hanky Panky - 1,200,000 Justify My Love - 3,025,000 Rescue Me - 1,150,000 This Used To Be My Playground - 3,025,000 Erotica - 1,340,000 Deeper And Deeper - 900,000 Bad Girl - 700,000 Fever - 500,000 Rain - 1,000,000 Bye Bye Baby - 350,000 I'll Remember - 1,750,000 Secret - 1,800,000 Take A Bow - 1,500,000 Bedtime Story - 1,000,000 Human Nature - 800,000 You'll See - 1,550,000 Love Don't Live Here Anymore - 400,000 You Must Love Me - 1,000,000 Don't Cry For Me Argentina - 1,200,000 Another Suitcase In Another Hall - 500,000 Frozen - 2,600,000 Ray Of Light - 1,500,000 Drowned World/Substitute For Love - 700,000 The Power Of Good-Bye - 900,000 Nothing Really Matters - 800,000 Beautiful Stranger - 1,700,000 American Pie - - 2,500,000 Music - 3,500,000 Don't Tell Me - 2,100,000 What It Feels Like For A Girl -1,000,000 Die Another Day - 1,700,000 American Life - Hollywood - Nothing Fails - Love Profusion - Hung Up Sorry

Add it up, and you'll see that it's 93.5 Million BEFORE American Life. I can't see all this resistance to include widely available data (available on Wikepedia as well!!!!!!!!) for Madonna, while for other artists any wild claim goes (even a famous claim from an innumerate record company that says 165M+50M+230M.... maths has become an opinion, this is not Madonna though). Check ANY other website and they will ALL add up to the same number... unless yoou add 7M singles since AL, in which case, you'll see that we ARE past 300M tot. Anyway, singles are certain, but data is released after the single's stopped selling, unlike albums. Happy? I don't really understand, really, you've been given lots of official sources, yet you still don't believe it. I've read other artists where a 'mailing list' that contradicts the official site has been put in the INTRO!!!! Here we have Warner Bros stating things in BOLD LETTERS, and people won't just do the maths...

Madonna highest female seller - IFPI List is a fake

I received the following email from Laura Childs of The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and have forwarded it to Liz Rosenberg, Madonna's publicist:

Dear [Zombie]
Sorry for the delay in coming back to you. IFPI has not published such a list and we are trying to track down the source of it so that we can correct the report.
Sorry for any confusion.
Kind regards
Laura Childs

Here is the email if you'd like to view it (with only my personal info removed): [26] So please, stop posting the IFPI figures because they are DEFINITELY fake. Feel free to contact me if you'd like me to forward you the email. You can also write info@ifpi.org if you don't believe me. Zombie1 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the fake article:

Highest Selling Artist Ever!
23 January 2006
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has just published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever. Madonna appears at number 4, right behind the Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley, with a total of 275 Millions records sold worldwide from 1984 to late 2005. Congratulations to our queen of the dance floor!
The full top 10 goes as follow:
01. The Beatles 40 400,000,000 UK 60s (1962-1970) Rock/Pop Guinness/EMI
02. Michael Jackson 14 350,000,000 US 70s-00s (1979-) Pop/R&B MJ Stats
03. Elvis Presley 150 300,000,000 US 50s-70s (1956-1977) Country/Rock
04. Madonna 16 275,000,000 US 80s-00s (1984-) Pop WBR [1]
05. Nana Mouskouri 450 250,000,000 Greece 60s-00s (1959-) Pop [2][3]
06. Cliff Richard 60 250,000,000 UK 50s-00s (1959-1969,1977-1979,1986-1999) Rock/Pop [4]
07.The Rolling Stones 54 ~250,000,000 UK 60s-00s (1964-1981) Rock 60.5 million in the US [5]
08. Mariah Carey 14 230,000,000 US 90s-00s (1990-) Pop/R&B
09. Elton John 43 ~220,000,000 UK 70s-00s (1972-1976,1989-1991,1997-) Pop [6]
10.Celine Dion 21 220,000,000 Canada 80s-00s (1990-) Pop Music/Pop Discography
I don't believe in you Zombie1!--Hotwiki 13:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? If you don't believe me and you are interested in the truth (as opposed to just being negative for the sake of madonna fandom), you can either a) go to this link ([27])to see a screen cap of the email (with my personal info removed), b) direct me to an email where I can contact you and I'll be happy to forward you the email response I got from the IFPI, provided you agree not to post my personal information, or (c) you can write them yourself at the email I gave you above and get a similar response - that way you won't have to be concerned with my believing me. I got the above email address from their website, and the person who wrote me is listed on their website. I took the time to check an unsourced article and I apologise if you are disappointed with the results. Zombie1 08:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There si no doubt that these numbers are not from the IFPI, however, they are based on record company declarations, and are as close as reality as we can gat.
The problem is not so much about recent well-known artistsa s about old artists and Miss Mouskouri. We do not have a clear idea of how many records the Beatles have sold, some even say in excess if 1Billion, but that is very unrealistic. 400M seems to match breakdowns. N Mouskouri's record company did declared 200M for her, but no one takes that claim very seriously, for the very fact that to sell those many copies in Greece, the Greek chart should have been a one-name list (literallY0 for 20 years, about 200M records have been sold in Greece since 1985.
  • So in the absense of a real definitive source, we should keep the fake numbers up there with all the other figures and make the intro section a confusing mess? I'm a fan, but I don't think we should throw fake numbers up there just because it makes Madonna look good. Is there an admin who has thoughts on this? Zombie1 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't post them. Anyway, there is very little doubt about Madonna's sales: a minimum of 286.6 Million and a maximum of just above 300, which is a 7% margin, more than we can say for a lot of artists. We tend to use declarations from recod companies for albums, so that is 200M, and every breakdown points to 200M. For singles, we just need to take the time to add up all the singles, as numbers are quite precise (record companies do not have to declare the exact number of albums legally, but singles are counted one by one literally). That's 93.5 M. The 275M total is actuiuually lower than what we get to by all sums (as I said, it counts 75M singles, which was in 1999). The new introduction to the Madonna page here is ok, it says 'more than 275M records'. It could have said between 275 and 300, but that is ok. We also need to remember that while we count her sales, she's sold another 10M records since the release of 'ung Up'(HU+COAD)less than 3 months ago.... Whoever produced that list, was actually quite kind to Mariah Carey, as they took the time to add 15M records to her own declaration (165M albums and 50M singles makes 215, not 230...). So, by all account, that list is not a 'pro-Madonna list' as it uses 6 year old data for singles, but by any calculation you want to use, that is the range: between 275 and 300 before Hung Up, even with very old data. People may say what they want, but numbers make it clear, Madonna is by far the best-selling female artist of all time, and not that far from the Beatles (the Beatles sold 165M albums in the US when the US market was 50% of teh world market, and have sold a few million more than Madonna in the UK,that's why I suppose about 400M is just right for the Beatles. Now the US market has shrunk considerably to about 30% of teh world market however, but even if the US had been 30% of teh sales of the Beatles or Elvis, numbers of 1 billion records are out of the question, also because adding up all the sales of their albums and singles, we again get to about 400M.) It is actually likely that Madonna is at this very moment or will be in a few months, not teh 4th, but the 3rd best-selling act of all time, and, at this rate, if she keeps going as she has, in less than 10 years she should be up there with the Beatles themselves (since 2000, Madonna's sold 40.8M albums and 15M singles, and that includes a gap of 3 years and a 'disappointment' still, a rate of 130M a decade...)
  • I appreciate your enthusiasm for Madonna's sales figures, but now we're supposed to believe it's more than 275 Mil, and more like 300 Million? I'm sorry but that makes no sense, and not even Warner Bros. is endorsing your figures.. unless you count them putting the IFPI list on madonna.com, which i've already shown you is a fake. We should stick with the figures we have actual source links for, i.e. the 2005 WB press release and the Guinness page. Why is someone (you?) deleting these links and replacing them with unsubstantiated data and no source links? Adding up sales figures that people claim to come from record labels doesn't seem very reasonable.Zombie1 18:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No figures? Warner Bros declared more than 200M albums and every figure (Wikipedia itself, www.absolutemadonna.com, etc...) has a tally of 295 at leat. Now, absolutemadonna.com's data are from Warner Bros Brazil. Is it so difficult to add up singles and albums? Anyway, the 275 comes from 200+75 which still would be acceptable,as I said, if it wasn't that those 75 M singles are as per year 1999. Whichever way you put it, it is impossible to get a tally of less than 275 for Madonna. I don't get your 'we are supposed to believe' just add up the numbers on Wikipedia and you'll see that 275 minimum more than sure. Just count the singles, add them up, they too seem to match exactly all the other websites, and WB Brazil (Absolutemadonna.com). My question is for you. Given basic 3 digit maths, how can you possibly add up singles and albums and get less than 275? (Actually, how can you add them up and not get at least 293.5)? The point is not that she's sold less than 275, but whether we count all the singles (293.5 at least) or not. well feel, to add partial numbers, it still is above 275.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian76 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't think anyone in this dicussion has trouble adding, thank you. This has nothing to do with math - this has to do with substantiated proof. Absolutemadonna, Wikipedia, and other sites all post numbers based on projections that have been provided by anonymous sources, fans, etc. There has never been a press release, or any other official document, from Warner Brazil or Warner Mars or anywhere else stating Madonna has sold more than 275+ albums (or 200 + 75 Mil. singles or whatever).. nor has there been any official confirmation of the individual album and singles sales you are "Adding up" to get your total. If you have an official source that can be web linked on to the article (i.e., not Wikipedia, AbsoluteMadonna, or other pages that are made by fans) then let's talk. Otherwise, I think we should stick to the figures that can be traced to a source. Doing anything else would be totally POV and not remotely neutral. I'm not even sure posting figures from a WB press release constitutes reputable and neutral, but that's all we've got. It amazes me how little people are interested in posting substantiated info on an encyclopedia page. Zombie1 20:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Please refer to the verifiability section of the Wikipedia Guidelines if you disagree with this info being excluded from the article. We are supposed to be using info with reputable, neutral third-party sources (i'd hardly call WBR a neutral source, so we really shouldn't be even using the press release, but it's better than no source at all). Since this article has been tagged, i think now more than ever we should be working to make it conform more with Wiki guidelines, don't you? Zombie1 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The data there is from Warner Bros. You take record company declarations for other artiists,they are usually taken as official. anyway, if you do not know how to get to 75M and do not trust WB, just add US sales and EU sales, that's past 75M singles anyway. Now, tell me Billboard, Radio 1, the EU branch of IFPI are not veritable either....
R you talking to yourself--Hotwiki 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The IFPI does not monitor individual singer sales. Links are above as to the 200M album sales (Warner Bros Press release) and 95M singles.

#3 or number three

Throughout the article you can find written #3, other times there is number 3 and other times there is number three (I'm just using that number). We have to agree on what format we will be using. I prefer #3 (because it saves space) but we can also go with number three as it appears more formal. But "number 3" that's just annoying.

Critical comments

An anon account with a history of vandalism has been diligently removing any quotation from the section Madonna_(entertainer)#Quotes_about_Madonna that are critical of Madonna, in particular of her Kabbalah-related activities. This is not a hagiography and it is not a fan site. It is an encyclopedia and criticism of Madonna has its place here as much as positive comments. Without discussion, the removal of this material is vandalism. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course critic is welcome - but the actual quotes section is not really suitable for a serious article. Fun quotes, serious statements, lyrics (partly written with other composers) and quotes from the 80's, 90's and 2000`s are mixed without a connection and they mostly don't refer their sources. It's better to remove this section completely - or to leave only quotes with proved sources - but a link to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Madonna_Ciccone should be enough. --Red-Blue-White 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the quotes section looks out of place in the article. I agree with Red-Blue-White, it probably would be better to remove the section because of the Wikiquote article which has a collection of quotes on and about Madonna. Underneath-it-All 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the quotes (including the critical ones) being moved to the Wikiquotes. What I object to is the inclusion of fluffy, adoring quotes being placed in this article while serious criticisms are excluded. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I say lets just exlcude the quotes from the main article. They don't fit.
Please sign your edits by putting "~~~~" at the end of them. Either all of the comments should move to Wikiquotes, or all should stay. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Move them to Wikiquote. The article doesn't need filler, and Wikiquote exists as a resource for quotations. Jkelly 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the quotes should be moved to Wikiquote.Zombie1 05:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Who keeps changing the intro??

The intro to this page is completely underwhelming: "Madonna Ciccone Ritchie, is a highly successful Italian American pop singer." This completely underwhelms Madonna's achievements and affect on Western popular culture, fashion, trends and attitudes. Even the articles on Tupac and Elton John are more flattering. The intro, "Madonna is considered to be one of the most iconic and influential female figures of the late twentieth century" is NOT an opinion. A similar intro is included on the articles of Elvis and The Beatles, among other entertainers so WHY is it changed here? Compare it to other "lesser" entertainer's bios (such as Selina and Mariah Carey) and you can see what I mean.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the other articles are more gushing, then they're wrong, not this one. Wikipedia is not a fanzine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we please have a discussion over the following:

1. Do we need to list all of Madonna's awards and chart placements in the intro? Wouldn't wikilinks to the awards and achievements section (kind of like how it is now, like "Madonna has received several awards, etc.") be better for the sake of neutrality and no POV?

2. The sales data issue continually goes back and forth. We get 200, 270, 275, 200 and 75 singles.. Shouldn't we stick to data that has source links (i.e. the WB press release and the Guinness page)?

3. Who is deleting the source links from the intro? I assume it's the same person who keeps inflating the sales numbers.

4. I'm not sure madonna ever "earned the title" "Queen of Pop". It's not really a title at all, not at least an official title. It's just a nickname from the fans and the media. Moreover, is putting that she "earned" it because of her successful albums, controversial image, etc. a bit too POV? Again, do we even agree it's a "title" she "earned"? Isn't it better to say "she's known for her successful etc." and she is "commonly referred to as Queen of Pop"? sounds a bit more neutral to me.

5. referring to her as singer, actress, pop icon, author, mother, brother, sister, etc. Would just referring to her as an "American entertainer be so bad?" I'm fine w/ it either way, i'm just curious what other people thing.

6. The idea of the intro, so I thought, was briefly summarizing the article. The way it is now, it says she catapulted to success, she's controversial, etc., won lots of awards, etc., and is currently promoting a new album. Is this a good enough summary? Does it cover all of the basics of madonna?

Don't flame me, a lot of the stuff I put back in is reverts from other authors, and I'm trying to open a dialogue to make the intro less pov. Zombie1 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Change again? Now I read 'more than 200m records'. Now that is inaccurate again. WB declare more than 200M albums. Is it so difficult to distinguish betewwn albums and 'records'? This is meant to be an encyclopoedia. No problem with 200M, but it has to be albums. Why dont't you just put 200M albums and 75 million singles? That would be appropriate. Or if you leave the 200M albums alone, it has to be albums, not records (by teh way, as counted on Wikipedia itself, and on all other sites, singles are far more than 75M) What's the problem with this page. If we stick top WB- then it's 200M ALBUMS. Unless Madonna's sold no singles at all, that's not singles. Just do some marths. Use the data on Wikipedia itself. Add up the singles and there you go. Funny how the intro page is contraddicted by the other pages on this very website. People would be confused with these numbers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian76 (talk • contribs)
  • It definitely should read 200 Million Albums- I just changed it. That's what it says on the press release. I'm glad we agree this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.. as opposed, I hope, to a POV fan page. I don't put 75 million singles because the press release does not say 75 million singles, and there is no reputable source with a weblink to that effect either - go read the verifiability section of the Wikipedia Guidelines to see my why I don't think we should include it. Why do you keep bringing up math? Math is irrelevant when you are talking about figures that have no source and likely came from fans or anonymous sources from record labels. And considering how the Wiki data on Madonna's sales roller coaster by the hour (depending on the whim of whatever fan is currently editing), I doubt we can call them reputable. Why not keep it simple, only mentioning what we can link to a source? Does Madonna really lose any credibility by not mentioning her single sales? Is she not still a hugely successful pop star? Zombie1 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If Warner bros Brazil (93.5M) is not reputable, I don't see why other record companies should. See my post above- the data on Absolutemadonna.com (as on a lot of other websites that someone opsted above) is from WB. Anyway, just email them and you'll get a reply.

Changed again?

It's changed again. For me 200M albums was ok (not records but albums yes). May decide to add singles or not, that's not a must. But this intro is too, too long. it details lots of achievements (how many top 10 hits and peaks in all positions etc...) plus refers to the IFPI, whcih does not seem to be confirmed. Can we agree on a normal intro page? The one before semed ok, after the change from records to albums.

Someone's taken away the 200M albums again... Plus the Guinness Book states 120M albums (just wait till they update it now...)

Copyrights violation

The first few chapters have been copy/pasted from videohits.com. [28] Is this okay? I don't think so.--Downtownstar 10:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not okay, and the violation extends into other areas of the article as well. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This is PURE BS (if you know what I mean) that stupid webpage (video hits.com.au) they are the one's doing copyrights violations. You can find this article on their web page

"Madonna is lending her voice to the big budget (approximately eighty million dollars) 2006 animated film Arthur and the Minimoys. Madonna provides the voice of Princess Selenia. The film by Luc Besson is expected to be released in December 2006." For a fact I know they copied that from here. I myself wrote that article on Wikipedia with my own words. Ramonojo 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think that we need the big copyvio template up. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems tell us to revert back to the latest revision that does not contain a copyright problem. Once we are all agreed that this is okay, we can achieve this by reverting back to my revert -- I went to the touble of finding the addition of the text in question and reverting back to the version immediately before that.
Further, I am tempted to agree with Ramonojo that http://www.videohits.com.au/ is a Wikipedia mirror site. I noticed when hunting down the text in question that it was added by User:Journalist. With no disrespect intended to the many fine contributors to this article whose work I am unfamiliar with, it strikes me as very unlikely that User:Journalist would introduce a copyright violation into Wikipedia. I'll drop that user a note at User talk:Journalist about this conversation. Jkelly 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for dropping by, Jkelly. I'd just like to point out that the article violates no copyright. The introduction was written solely by me with no help whatsoever from http://www.videohits.com.au/ or any other source(s). In other words, that site copied Wikipedia, not the other way around. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So is anyone taking this up with Video Hits? I assume that if they ripped off one article they ripped off more. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Kylie and sure enough, it is practically identical. I'll be making some phone calls to Channel 10 tomorrow. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad this got cleared out. Sorry for the mayhem, but at least videohits.com.au will get what they deserve.--Downtownstar 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Shame on Video Hits. Glad to hear our version is kosher. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why "shame on video hits"? Wikipedia is governed under GFDL, which means that anyone can copy, paste and practically do anything with the info. They have done nothing wrong. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Because the terms of use require, amongst other things, derivative works to also be GFDL and to be suitably attributed to their source. Neither is the case here. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What kind of action should be taken, then?--Downtownstar 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've sent a GFDL violation letter to Channel 10 who produce the show. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
At least most of the mirror sites clearly state that the article came from Wikipedia (and they copy them verbatim), but no such acknowledgement from Video Hits. I wrote the bulk of the Kylie article and I think it's hilarious that they took the opening paragraph and a few paragraphs from the end and omitted the entire middle section which discusses - wait for it - her music career. It looks like they've done a cut and paste job without even reading it, and in this case I'm glad Wikipedia is not cited as a source because it would only serve to cheapen Wikipedia. I'm amazed that an employee at Video Hits/Network Ten/whatever got PAID to do a very bad cut and paste to create something that is totally pointless. It makes me wonder what level of literacy you need in order to work for them. Very interested to hear what kind of reply you receive. Rossrs 13:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dance and Sing World Tour 2006?

Just a question about the tours title. I haven't seen this title anywhere before until now, not on Madonna's official site or any fan site. Can someone confirm this title? Underneath-it-All 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen this title either, anywhere. I deleted it from the article. If someone can actually confirm it (which I doubt since it would seem unlikely that Madonna would name her 2006 tour after a verse from a twenty-year old hit), feel free to revert back.--Downtownstar 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this title was given by a Fun Radio host (a french radio station) they said Madonna was going to be there with them tomorrow (which i highly doubt) so it is probably a made up title. Unless, of course, Madonna appears on the show tomorrow as they stated and she confirms the tour title. Ramonojo 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive the talk page

Could somebody archive this talk page it's so big now, Thanks--Hotwiki 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)