Talk:Madonna/Archive03

This is an archive of past discussions about Madonna. 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.

Why was this title changed from Madonna(Entertainer) to Madonna(Artiste)? Doesn't the title entertainer cover all her ventures? (I.E. Singer, Author, Actress)

Oh and could someone explain the definition of an artiste?Fritte 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's it gone?

Why is there absolutly no criticism throughout this entire obviously made fan page? I mean, I absoultly hate Madonna, and I see absolutly nothing that talks about people who dislike her. Only about her "struggles" and ow everyone loves her and buys her CDs. I cant believe not one person hasn't said anything about criticism.

I have heard people describe Madonna as "a stupid famewhore slut"

--202.164.195.56 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a session 4 (Criticism) which some moron insists on reverting all the time. The biggest problem here are those fanatics who think they own the page and will do all they can to hide any information which is not glamurous about her. Here is my suggestion, which should obviously be improved in all ways:

Criticism Despite of her undeniable fame [60], sucess [61], iconic and superstar status and groundbreaking career achievements [62], it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has ben the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt. Very common criticism against Madonna regards her singing voice and her vocal range, which some consider to be weak, limited and mannered, and what they see as her egocentrism, her publicity stunts and her tendence to generate controversy. Respected artists like Paul McCartney (during 2005's Live 8, when both McCartney and Madonna performed), Elvis Costello, who dismissed Madonna as being just a dancer and not a competent musician and Joni Mitchell (who once declared, She has knocked the importance of talent out of the arena. She's manufactured. She's made a lot of money and become the biggest star in the world by hiring the right people) [63], as well as other popular entertainers like Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey [64] and Janet Jackson once have openly expressed disapproval of her artistic habilities, disdain or criticism against her image and body of work. Madonna's lyrics have also been frequently penned as simple or even dull (an example being influencial indie music website Pitchforkmedia's review of Love Profusion, in which the reviewer stated that we also know she can't write lyrics, but lines like, "I know I feel bad when I get in a bad mood" are pretty ridiculous, even for a retard [65]. The same page labeled her 2003 duet with Britney Spears one of the greatest disasters in pop music history, (...) surefire ship-sinker, (...) an abomination (...) and the ultimate musical horror [66]. Examples of moments of her career in which Madonna has been more overtly criticised encompass her Like a Prayer video (1989), the publishing of her Sex book and her Erotica album (1992), the American Life album era (2002), her duet with Britney Spears (2003), her Live to Tell performance during her Confessions Tour and the David Banda adoption incident (both 2006).

All artists get criticised. Nothing can though go against the facty that Madonna is the most successful female artist in history and the most influential. All those critics are midgets in musical terms compared with Madonna's colossal status in music history. I don't see criticiism of the artists you mention on their pages, and they've been through , in some cases, much heacvier criticism than Madonna. Criticism of Madonna is actually often reported here, about the book 'Sex' about her 'adoption' etc... these are views expressed by individuals, that have found way in this article. If one wants to get NMariah Carey's vew of Madonna here, one should also put Madonna's view of Mariah Carey on her page, and, one must admit, Madonna being one of the towering figures of this century, I don't think it woould be fair to Maruiah. as she is a musician, music critics' views may be reported, but she is now established all over the world as one of the greatest 3 (or 5?) musicians of the century, so there's very little to put there. A kiss being described as a disaster by a journalist certainly isn't musical criticism but mere opinion. Criticism about her vocal range? What for, she has at least two notes more than Celine Dione (yes, Madonna has at least 2.5 octaves) and singing? She does not usually shout (if that's what you call singingf) but her expressive range (as demonstarted by her huge gamut of songs, from swin-blues to heavy metal live performances, ballads, dance, pop, rock, etc...) makes her one of the most eclectic singers around, and her incredible ability to sing and dance at the same time means she ahs a midriff that's stronger than Aretha Franklin's. There is no way her voice can be criticise. See her live on the same stage as M Carey (Live 8) and you'll find that not only did Maddy touch a not 2 octaves higher than MC olive on the very same day, that that note was stronger than any of MC's falsettos, but that she awas also dancing, and SINGING (by which I mean confidently conveying feelings and emotios) unlike the other lady who was struggling to go up and down the scales (that's not in itself singing) more with her hands than with her voice. Madonna does not have the best voice in teh world, no doubt, but she uses it extremely well. THAT is singing. On top of that, Madonna does sing songs of 2.5 octaves (actually Crazy for You spans more than that, and RoL even moer, but have not been counted to her vocal range yet) and uses every note within those without going into falsetto (or whistler voice) confidently and with MEANING. No she does not usually shout, which gives an impressio of a weak voice, but do you know that Celine Dion, despite all her voice cannot sing 'Don't Cry for Me Argentina' nor 'Crazy for You' nor 'Ray of Light' because a singer qwhose voice is perceived as big because of volume (dynamics or lack of) rather than range and ability simply does not have the same range as Madonna's svoice? To give you an idea, Whitney had about 3 or 3.5 octabves, and the only woman internationally who could do more was Aretha Frankli ('Close to You' does span 4.5 octaves whatever the lies around that no woman ever passed the 2.5 octaves). Has Liza Minelli a big voice? No a loud one. Barely 2 octaves when it was good. Allegedly, Maria Callas had 2.5 octaves (same as Madonna!) though I am sure it was more, but that is another issue. Criticise her songwriting ability? Well you can, but when she's made music history by driving music forward, and when you look at her genius (non songs, inverted canons, and by the way, did you notice Die Another Day is a tango?) songs like 'UIsaac' on the recent album are just masterpieces, and after having CREATED electro-pop, being tie with Eliiv in the US with numbers of hits, having more in the UK than the Beatles and the Stones put together... Well, there's very ground for credible criticim./ This said, I may not LIKE her songs, gher personality or anything she does, but if criticism has to be entered, then it must be musical, and she IS a music giant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

You totally changed the subject of the topic. The beginning of the Criticism session states better and in a far more concise and precise way that she's a "musical giant" (your words now). Being undeniably famous and successful doesn't mean there is no controvery about her talents and body of work. This is meant to be an encyclopia and therefore it needs to be neutral. It needs to show all sides of the same subject. It needs to state how successful she is and also how criticized she gets. This is no fan page, come on. If we begin to act like you this will turn into another janet jackson page were even a single peaking at #90 is described as a huge success. In other wrds, such a page is USELESS for normal people who want to get unbiased information about an artist.

I didn't do the article, I'm not an editopr here. There's liittle arguing Madonna is a giant of music, if that worries you. Whjat I said is that there is a lot of criticism, and have nothing against inserting MUSICAL criticism in her article, it's putting in stupid insults bya nyone who has access to the press that is suseless. There is criticism under many sectipons (and nnow a whole section dedicated to it). What here was implied is that opinions of other singers should be included. Answer: no- or we'll end up up pages and pages of insults, and that would be not only for Madonna, but for mosta rtists.

^^^ we cant take your opinion, because you are obviously a huge Madonna fan who would delete all of the critisism anyway. That fact that she is "collasal" in the music industry and "pushed music forward (hahaha)" is the reason there should be critisim. If you are in a crappy band, then there shouldnt be any critisim, but when you are "iconic", then there absoultly should be some. Especially when you get as much critisim as she does. (72.226.87.148 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Although it may be true, why has someone put that Madonna is the fourth best-selling singer worlwide in the intro? Unless we find a reliable source you cannot put that.

Why bother making changes or trying to add and improve this article when it seems 1 person is just running around changing EVERYTHING back and reverting any changes back to HIS version, I guess he owns the article, and I will not bother anymore. I added several items, her horse accident, her grammy performance, announcing the tour on Ellen, her hernia operation, and improved the Confessions tour article, and I just keep getting told not to edit anymore because its all spam! I'm sick of it, let him own the article then!

Ok, the problem with the Intro is that Madonna has not sold 'an estimated 120M albums' but an estimated 210M- The Guinness Book of recoprds has had the 120M figure since 1998 and the data was collected from her 1996 figures (before Ray of Light and Evita, to get the idea). Only in the US, EU (former EEC countries- not the whole modern 25) canada and Australia, Madonnna had cerifications for 155M albums in 2002 (before American Life). Only US+EU add up to 135 platinums to date.

You should make clear that that is the data in the Guinness Book of Records, and that it is rather old, otherwise it seems to clash with WB's 200M in 2005 (PS the Guinness data comes from he IFPI and WB itself- there cannot be such a great discrepancy). Remember Madonna has appeared in the Guinness Book since 1998, data was collected the year before that (1997)and was obviously per 1996.

Ok- Madonna is NOT French Canadian. Italian-American, Okay, but she is not a Canadian citizen. She is of French-Canadian descent, but is not technically a French Canadian. -24.215.253.143 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Orane has allegedly 'deleted all references to who is the best seller between Madonna and Mariah Carey'. In reality, he's been trying to twist the facts. Why has he not deleted his own statement in the introductioon to Mariah Carey saying that the WMA have 'named her the best-selling female artist of the millemnium', statement repeated in his article on the WMA, and denied by the WMA? WMA link [www.worldmusicawards.com/pastawards]The truth is that he's trying to delete all references about Madonna having sold more than Mariah, which is backed by all official sales, IFPI, Record Companies and the Guinness Book of Records. this is censure and an attemt to present incorrect facts. Orane is a self-confessed Lamb, all his data comes from fansites, and still he goes on and on about how it is true (not really, some data comes from forums, anyway, little is official). I am disgusted!

In reviewing the Madonna article, I have to say that it is poorly written. Chop full of unnecessary little tidbits and fan-giggly commentary. I would clean it up, but there appears to be a swat team of editors patrolling this article, who would undoubtedly revert my edits.

BTW, before anyone accuses me of being otherwise -- I AM a Madonna fan, but this is still an encyclopedia…not a tribute site. — NwDavis 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Isopropyl 23:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is poor - very poor in parts and needs major work - even a complete re-write it seems. Madonna should be a featured article - but the state its in at the moment its got no chance! Rimmers 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh--hottie 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are improvements that can be made to make the article better i am for that. I think the problem is that a lot of Madonna fans (including myself) are "protective" of this article for the simple fact that it seems to be a target for a lot of vandalism on an almost weekly basis. I had to edit or revert several things myself on here including the photo that was once replaced by a picture of male genitalia and the header at top that was changed to "suck my ****" and other profanities that were placed throughout the article on various occasions over the past few months. That is one of the main reasons why i set up a user name on here. Not only because i would like to contribute but also because my IP address on AOL had often been blocked because of other AOL users posting negative things on various articles. MJW 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)MikeinrdgpaMJW 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's terrible Mikeinrdgpa, it's a shame some people must act childish and make a mess of Wiki. There's a downside to every upside!PatrickJ83 05:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I too have tried to make some improvements to this article. I wanted to make the Confessions on a Dancefloor section more readable and less cluttered but my changes were reverted back soon after. MJW 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Mikeinrdgpa

If there is a group of people reverting edits to improvements then don't stand for it. They do not own the article. Report them to the admin. This article is pitiful and needs improving. You can vote for the article on the Article Improvement Drive (AID). Rimmers 20:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as an example. This quote has no place anywhere in any sort of respectable article: "Despite madonna's attempts to appear Left it is clear that her proud materialism and lack of political knowledge make her a Clinton Democrat at best." This is a poor, partisan joke at best and gravely insulting to a great many readers at worst. For this and other reasons this article needs to be cleaned up and the person who made that quote should seriously be under consideration for being locked out. 68.96.255.13 05:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have an issue with strong POV wording, there are ways to handle it. In this case, that wording is unacceptable, and I would advise removing it (I might do so myself). However, we are unable to catch every vandal at Wikipedia, especially people that add subtle POVs to articles. There's just not enough manpower. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited this comment a while ago, only to see it reverted. She is is occasionally referred to as the Queen of Pop, not "commonly." For the most part, it seems that she is referred to as the Queen of Pop in the English press. In the US, the term is relatively rare, and it seems to be increasingly rare in the UK as well. I wish someone would allow me to edit that bit. But working on this article is almost futile because, as the person above said, everything is reverted rather quickly. -- Andrew Parodi 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

She's bheen called the Queen of Pop since 1985. SHE IS

I have to disagree with the first comment. She is very much known as the "Queen of Pop" in Britain amongst the press and public alike. I'm sure the same could be said for the American public and press too. I could go off now and find hundreds of news articles from loads of news agencies and blogs referring to her as the "Queen of Pop" - Honestly, I find this a bit OTT. --UkNews 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just think we might have to write the whole article all over or at least vote for what it relevant in an encyclopedia and what is not. And do that section by section. Ramonojo 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sometimes referred to as 'The Queen of Pop'" is better, "commonly" implies that everyone calls her by this name which is not true, she is referred to as QOP by her fans and occasional media references. PatrickJ83 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sure you can find thousands of instances when the press has called her the Queen of Pop, same for TV etc. No doubt the title was first used for her, and hardly ever used for anyone else (occasionally, very occasionally other singers have been called like that). Now google QOP and you'll see that 99.995% of references are to Madonna.

Actually, I've done it for you. It takes 20 pages to find someone who is not Madonna (excluding a brand of popcorn and a group called 'Queen of Pop') when searching "Queen of Pop" on Google. Is that not enough to justify 'commonly'? I would say 'almost exclusively' would be acceptable as well. [1]

As to Media, do a google search for News on the Queen of Pop, and you'll find that all but one entries in the Media in the last month refers to the Queen of Pop as Madonna. (J Lo is called QoP once, by a fan though, not by the paper...). Is that not 'commonly' referring her as the QoP???????????????????????????? [2]

Anyway, this "title" is more of an information for the [trivia page], not the main article. Bisco 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue has also been refered to in US & UK Press as the Princess of Pop, and the Sunday Mercury in the UK said "Superstar Kylie Minogue showed exactly why she is the undisputed Queen of Pop with an amazing show." They were refering to her Showgirl Tour. This was also printed in small print on the Official Kylie Showgirl DVD. I think this is evidence enough to change it to "sometimes refered to" as obviously some people would think Queen of Pop would mean someone else (i.e. Cher, J-Lo, Kylie)

Sometimes means every now and then, usually means frequently. As I said, get yourself a few newspapers, do agoogle search etc, and you'll see 99% of the time it is used for Madonna. 'Almost' exclusivelly' would acually be more appropriate than 'usually' to me statistically correct. Also, Madonna's sold 230 million records more than Kylie, let's not even mention the others. With a carrer like hers, there's little dispute who's the Queen... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, but Kylie has also been quoted as saying "Madonna's the Queen of pop, I'm the princess. I'm quite happy with that." Really, no one but Madonna is regularily called Queen of pop. Even the few others that get the mention in passing (Kylie, J.Lo) is only when they're at the height of their powers and not when they're less successful (even when Madonna isn't doing so well she is still the Queen of Pop). Furthermore, these other artists are far more commonly referred to as "pop princess'", when have you EVER heard someone refer to Madonna as only a pop princess? Madonna is indisputedly the Queen of Pop, it's just as common a moniker as "Material Girl/Mom/etc" and should be properly acknowledged.

She is commonly known as 'Mom'?

Isn't Madonna more commonly known as "Madonna" than as "the Queen of Pop"? – Oops, that link redirects to Madonna (entertainer), so should 'Queen of Pop' be bolded in the article?

Maybe the fact that could be mentioned is that in popular media, the tag "Queen of Pop" (most) commonly refers to Madonna --83.253.36.136 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/284370.htm is another article about Kylie Minogue being called the Queen of Pop. Kylie Minogue has consitently in Australian and UK Media been called the Queen of Pop. This article was from Africa, and I've also seen references to the title in Asia as well in regard to Kylie Minogue. It doesn't matter what Kylie calls herself as I doubt Madonna calls herself "Hello, Queen of Pop!" and it seems odd as in my post above that Kylie would have allowed "Queen of Pop" printed on her Showgirl DVD if she had an 'agreement' with Madonna. I have also edited the Queen of Pops page to point towards both artists. I think this is only fair after what I posted, otherwise people might get confused. Queen of Pop obviously points to both artists.

ok, the ariticle that calls kylie the 'queen of pop' is from 2003, and calls kylie that because of how many weeks she has been at number 1 in the UK charts, since 2003 (3 years ago...) madonna has been number 1 for 5 more weeks since then in the UK (3 weeks with hung up, i think, and 2 with sorry..?) correct me if im wrong, so surely that puts her 'at the top' again....madonna is called the queen of pop far, far, far more often than kylie, kylie is nearly always known as a pop princess, along with britney, xtina etc.... so, you can only find 1 article that calls her the queen of pop......, when i could find thousands saying that madonna is...i think that teh queen of pop article should be deleted, its not needed, plus no-one is ging to come on here and type in 'queen of pop' in the search box are they...? they are either going to put in madonna, kylie, britney etc...81.1.112.20 17:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Madonna calling herself the Queen of Pop, in an Australian Channel 10 interview (with Andrew G) when promoting her Confessions album, the host asked her to say "Seriously" (as this is the channel's slogan). At first she refused and said "Hello, I am the Queen".121.44.139.113 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hits such as "Holiday," "Like a Virgin" and "Like a Prayer" earned her massive success during the 1980s. Further hits followed in the 1990s such as "Vogue," "Take a Bow," and "Frozen." She has also released several hit singles during the 2000s, such as "Music," "American Pie" and "Hung Up.""

....Seems to me this is irrelevant; Madonna's a pop star and is known by the public for her various hits and furthermore this just doesn't seem professional to me; wouldn't it be more prudent to cut this part out and just keep it like this:

....Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone[1] (born August 16, 1958) is a US-American pop singer, dancer, songwriter, producer, actress, and author. She is internationally well known for reinventing her image, creating innovative music videos, and generating controversy in both her work and personal life. She is commonly referred to as the "Queen of Pop." ....

That seems MUCH more concise and to-the-point to me. Who agrees? I think we should trim the fat. PatrickJ83 05:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am one of Madonna's biggest fans and you can see all of my answers and you can tell that I am huge fan, but I agree, stating some of her hits (and on top of that you list some for each decade) is irrelevant, for an opening statemen is horrible. I also think we should cut that out and do something more eye catching and not start reading and be like "ok we know her hits". Ramonojo 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just got a kick out of the description of her shows as being "elaborately mounted"...

if you are going to list her as 'Italian American' remember that she is only half Italian and that her mother was French canadian. Catherine

Can someone please do something about the first paragraph? It's just....ugh. I would love to practice what I preach but I dare not for fear of becoming totally addicted...PatrickJ83 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This event, which made the front page of the Business section of the Los Angeles Times among other publications, deserves a little more than one sentence tacked on to the 'American Life' section.

This, to me, is a more important detail of M's career than how many copies blah album sold its first week in stores or what chart position blah single got to on blah chart.PatrickJ83 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it is important, and as you said somewhat more important than chart positions, I will say in my humble opinion that it gets what it deserves one sentence is good enough. I mean who wants to be reading court nonsense, some do, but the majority don't. Ramonojo 22:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one believe, that as far as Madonna's BIOGRAPHY (which this is) goes, the loss of her personally-run record label by her (and its) parent label is a far more important event in her career than something as trivial and silly as sales. Opening-week sales is a tidbit for fans and this is not supposed to be a fan page, but a professional reference. Also IMO sales and the like should be kept to the respective album pages and the important stuff to the main Madonna page. Isn't that why there are seperate pages for her records? IMO "Blah album debuted at #1 in several countries" is more than enough info, "it sold 351,158 its first week in stores" is superfluous. PatrickJ83 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Before Maverick, Madonna has been a singer and an artist! I certainly believe that chart positions and sales are far more important than the loss of the Maverick! Come on, Madonna is an internationally successful aritst before mentioning her blah blah record company!

Madonna's sales can be commented on in the opening salvo establishing her as the world's top-selling female artist. Indivdual sales are NOT, I repeat NOT important and inappropriate to the main Madonna page. All that needs to be said is the album debuted at #1, not how many it sold. 10 copies or a million, #1 is #1. And besides being an artist, Madonna is a businesswoman, and Maverick was the incarnation of that. PatrickJ83 23:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Patrick here. As for the nonsense about "I certainly believe that chart positions and sales are far more important than the loss of the Maverick! Come on, Madonna is an internationally successful aritst before mentioning her blah blah record company!" exactly how many singers end up running their own record company? This is a major aspect of Madonna's biography. When "Maverick" started there was a huge amount of publicity, Madonna was seen as becoming part of the "establishment" that she had previously subverted, and there was speculation as to how/if she would use her own status to develop other artists and thereby create a far wider legacy than just herself and her own music. It was also speculated as to how far reaching her own career would become with herself officially at the helm of the label that distributed her music. It was a deal that even the most successful of her rivals had not been able to achieve and was seen as a significant first for a female artist. In some areas it was seen virtually as a license for her to print money. And yet it didn't work out that way. Why? How? That she has faced a legal battle with Warner's and relinquished "Maverick" is a much more important fact in her biography than much of the fancrufty chart sales and chart positions. Yes, Madonna is a singer and performer and this is covered in considerable detail. She is also a businesswoman, and a product, and is a marketer of herself as a product. "Maverick" deserves at least a solid paragraph if not a section (personally I think it warrants a section) rather than the sentence given. The offhand and dismissive one-sentence inclusion is one of the examples of why this article is more a fansite than an encyclopedic biographical article. If you don't think "Maverick" is important, you are totally missing the point. There is more to be said here than "court nonsense". Rossrs 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What we have here on Confessions section is that it's been a massive hit since the release! That album's success was contrary to the one of American life and some others. It set a new record by debuting at no.1 in so many countries and sold so many copies a few weeks after the initial release last year. I understand that your point of view of madonna being a record company owner and battling with Warner gives good dimension to her career. But that has nothing to do with Confessions sales and chart positions and what it has achieved (I'm talking about her album sales in general too)! What does Maverick's loss have to do with Madonna's commercial achivements and success in her biography? You may add more information and explaination about the Maverick's loss in Madonna's career, but I also think that Confessions album has been significant in its international success in a short period of time with new records set, even right after the lukewarm reception of American Life album: I'm sure if that record were set by other artists, they would clearly have mentioned about it! But why not Madonna? Because she has been an owner of a record company, the stats are not as important?

What Confessions album has achieved is also very intersting and acknowledgable in terms of her career's path and survival. But in Confessions years section I think it's important that we make sure to have information and notes about what Madonna has achieved in terms of sales and records like most other artists' section provides with its own achievement and significance! As far as being a commercially successful artist, the stats and records matter in this competive music world today. And Madonna is no exception! Moreover, fans or readers have rights to know and find them from here, as this site being an encyclopedia!

But I also agree that we may need more information about the loss of Maverick because in the 90's the company was massive and signed successful artists with the management of Madonna's team and in the end Madonna walked out of the business with paycheck for her waiver of the company. And most artists don't get to sit on the chair to be a chief of their own record companies! It can be quite interesting to some people when acknowledging Madonna's career.211.58.82.85 09:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify : "American Life" needs to be discussed as a relatively poorly received release. "Confessions" has to be discussed as a great success. Could not agree with you more. However "Maverick" should also be discussed. Not in the sections about either of the albums - agreed. But it does need to be discussed. In the overall sphere of Madonna's life and career in terms of her biography, the "Maverick" events are more significant than any one album. It needs to be discussed but not under any of the album cover headings, which by the way, are very restrictive. Articles such as Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey provide a chronology which is not limited by album title headers, and perhaps that is something else we need to address here. The use of album titles precludes any other relevant discussion. Rossrs 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (also please sign your posts by typing in four tildes - the squiggly symbol on the key to the left of the number "1".)

Will someone PLEASE type up a good paragraph or two on Maverick? PatrickJ83 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already a whole article about [Maverick]. No need to put that information in here! Just link to the page. Bisco 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was working on redirecting the links pointing at the disambiguation page for Producer and when I got here was a little unsure in what capacity Madonna is listed as a producer, is it, for example, record production or film production? I'd appreciate a little guidance. Thanks. - Politepunk 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Madonna is primarily a record producer, but she has been credited as an executive producer on some films. Underneath-it-All 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Politepunk 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive and add your vote!!

We got 8 votes, let's get it to 12 by the end of the month!! The Madonna page will thank u.... PatrickJ83 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Voted --hottie 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks hottie! PatrickJ83 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better that Madonna's bio is separated by years not by her studio albums, her career is not just about her albums. So for the Ip user who keeps reverting the current version stop it please.--hottie 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's hot. I SO agree. The new version is a rough draft of how the page could/should ideally be. PatrickJ83 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the comment--hottie 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. What an improvement you've made to the structure of the article, hottie! Much better. Keep up the good/hot work. Rossrs 11:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Good work hottie! -- Underneath-it-All 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the header titles are off. I wouldn't call 1986-1991 "Career Development." That sounds nearly interchangeable with the era tagged "Pop Music Beginnings." I would call it 'Golden years' or something to that affect. I wouldn't lump the Sex-era with Evita. If anything, Evita should be grouped alone -- or as part of her "career comeback," which I would title something like 'Renaissance.' Comeback implies that her career had hit rock bottom before that point, which it hadn't. — DtownG 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happened to Madonna's page? It's a mess. Each heading should be by era/album, not the nonsense you have started. Someone pointed this page out to me. It was so much easier to follow the old way. Now it's all POV. The entire page needs to be redone. All that work down the drain. Current era, 2003-2006? What the heck? Each album sparks a new era. Madonna's starts fresh with each new project. Any fan knows that. -A Madonna fan pissed.

You ask a valid question, although it should be "what the heck happened to the Wikipedia article about Madonna"?, because this is not "Madonna's page". The page is not hers, or for her, it's about her. I think this is indicative of your own POV, but semantics aside, here is the answer. Probably a lot of people do not like the article as it currently stands, and a lot probably have not liked how it has stood for the last year or so. It's not a good article and needs a lot of work. I'd go as far as to say that it's a pretty bad article right now, and this is not my POV here - measure the article against the criteria for what constitutes Wikipedia's best work and it falls well short on every point. The main thing that needs to be done is to convert it from a fan page to an encyclopedic article. It's a big job and it may require breaking the article to pieces and reassembling it. This will take time and while it's happening, the article may well resemble a construction site and displease many people. Although the article is bad now, the intention is to make it better than it's ever been before, and make it a high quality reference material for Madonna. There is much more to be said about this person that merely listing her albums and chart positions, but at the moment that is the main focus of the article. The article needs to be condensed in some areas and expanded in other areas, so that the entire story is told.

Heading each section by album title restricts discussion to the albums and their surrounding events, rather than the broader picture of Madonna's life and career. This article is supposed to be a biography, not a discography, as much as it's supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a fanpage. Much of the highly detailed information contained here does not belong here, but belongs in Madonna discography, Madonna singles and/or Madonna albums (as well as the articles for the specific singles and albums) and Madonna trivia. Please look at other articles, particularly Wikipedia:Featured articles, and within that list, the music related ones. Madonna fanpages are a dime a dozen (and most of them are worth less than that) - there are so many of them, some of them good and some bad, but what we don't need is another one here. On the other hand, there are very few quality sites that provide a good, thorough overview of Madonna's life and career. The intention is that this will be one of those few sites, and in fact, the best of them. It's possible to be a fan and still provide an encyclopedic article about Madonna - I think the majority of editors to this article are fans but it must be looked at objectively - not from the POV of a fan. You've made it clear that you are looking at this only through the eyes of a fan. That's not what Wikipedia is about. If you would like to contribute to improving the article you're welcome of course, but please read through all the comments on this talk page first, so that you understand what people are trying to do here, before you jump to conclusions that the article is being destroyed. Whether you agree or disagree, you will have a better chance of influencing the future development of the article if you assume good faith in the other editors and remain polite, and come here to discuss your concerns rather than berate the people who are attempting to bring this article up to scratch. Rossrs 15:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rossrs and UnderneathItAll--hottie 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this article has to be the worst on Wikipedia. It reads so much like a damn fan-page, its almost vomit-inducing. From the very introduction, phrases like "She is internationally well known for her outstanding level of commercial success" and "...her consistent and unprecedented contribution to pop music as well as her international success and fame" give the impression that I'm reading a badly-written press-release. That is simply not an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia to have. I'm sorry if I am being harsh to the editors, but that's the reality of the situation. The article will never be even remotely encyclopedic until fans of the singer take the time to read and apply our NPOV policy. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It's being worked on but it's not going to happen overnight. It might need to be written and rewritten a number of times before it starts to fall into place, because at the moment there is so much wrong with it. It has to evolve, and it is going through that process now, but the alternative it to just delete the whole thing and start from scratch, and that's not viable. Rossrs 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Our" policy? So I assume you are one of the administrators of this website? I would hope not, you do a disservice to this site with language such as "vomit inducing" and "damn fan page". If you wish for this page to improve, it may be beneficial to improve your own attitude first. By the way, the word is "worst", not "worse". PatrickJ83 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And it would be beneficial for you to attack the page and not the user who comments on it. I used "our policy" not to show ownership or to prove that I am an Administrator, but to show that these policies were developed by the community (everyone who edits here). Yes, the article is "vomit inducing", and I am not about to sugarcoat my opinion. Fans of Madonna, while remaining ignorant of the policies —our policies —have caused the article to degenerate from a featured article to the joke you see in front of you. And since we are all in the mood to correct grammatical errors, I should point out that in your third sentence, you used a comma where you should have used a semi-colon. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really loving the intro rewrite. Kudos to whoever did it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How old are you, 12? There are ways of getting your opinion across without resorting to juvenile remarks such as "vomit inducing". You are really no better than the "ignorant fans" you complain about. PatrickJ83 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not in the mood for a debate with you. I have strong feelings about the article; I vocalised them. Full stop. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Orane. I think it still needs to be fleshed out a bit, but it's a start. Rossrs 09:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Orane's own pages are no less of a fansite: they actually have factual mistakes that the websites quoted themselves state are wrong- yet he won't change them...

This current format is such a mess, get rid of it! Please! The Ups and Dows, Successes... just awful. Go back to the original version by each era. Whoever messed this up should be banned from editing.

Please sign your comments for others know who posted them and if you had a problem with the titles than please suggest other ones before reverting the article back to the album sections. As Rossrs says in the To Do List the album sections limit discussion of Madonna's career to only the albums and makes it difficult to discuss other relevant events unless they neatly fall under discussion of one of the albums. The album headers just make it harder to edit and add to the article. -- Underneath-it-All 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Underneath-it-All - and other editors have obviously agreed judging by hottie's edits, and PatrickJ83 and Orane's comments. So to the anonymous reverter - do not presume to force your minority opinion onto this article. Read through this talk page and you will see that several editors have been working on this article and that the recent changes have been supported. In addition to changing the headers you have also changed all the subsequent edits within the article itself, and I really don't appreciate you wasting so much of my time. I spent a lot of time going through fixing things like spelling errors and poor grammar, and you've carelessly reverted the whole lot, as well as all the edits made by other editors. Why? Because you don't like it? We are collectively trying to move this article forward - your reversion, which totally ignored all the other edits, has served no purpose but to put us back exactly where we started. Please take the time to learn how Wikipedia operates before you go making such big changes to this, or any, article, and please ensure that you are acting within the consensus of other users. I'm reverting it back - please do not revert it unless you discuss it here first and get support from other editors. Rossrs 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the section 1982-1985 Beginnings And Rise To Fame are horrible, it talks about a second single being Physical Attraction, a third about being Burning Up and a fourth being Holiday. Physical Attraction inded charted on the Dance Chart but #1 along with Holiday but never as a stand alone single and it didn't reach #3 and it never was a comericial single. Can someone please fix that. Ramonojo 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --W(t) 04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed it to the best of my abilities.Ramonojo 15:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this part from the article:

"Recently references to Kabbalah Centre beliefs and principles have appeared in her music, including the track "Nobody Knows Me" from American Life (I sleep much better at night / I feel closer to the Light / Now I'm gonna try / To Improve my life)."

Because I don't see a strict reference to Kabbalah in those lines. And I never heard Madonna say this song is about "Kabbalah Centre beliefs and principles". Bisco 17:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

...VERY tacky and the titles themselves sound quite hokey. {64.12.117.10}

It's a commonly accepted format. See featured articles Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue and Celine Dion as examples. If you think the titles are hokey, come up with something better, but we've discussed here at length how the use of album titles as headers limit article content to discussion relating to the albums. This is an attempt to broaden the biographical information. Please also note that reverting to an old version erases all subsequent edits - not just the headers that you dislike. Things like spelling mistakes and incorrect grammar are being restored along with the headers. Rossrs 14:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded thirteen Madonna audio samples, does anyone like it? I like it. Should I put more audio samples like Sorry, Material Girl, Music, etc in this article.--hottie 15:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone else thinking that audio samples are too much? I think they should be only in the song articles. Bisco 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I wish you said anything nice about the samples, you know I used two different softwares and took a lot of hard work just to put those ogg files. Anyway, in Kylie Minogue's article ,every header contains 3 to 4 audio samples and here every header contains at least 2-3 audio samples so it's not too many in my opinion.--hottie 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the audio samples help add to the article, letting the reader listen to the songs described or talked about in the article. Good work hottie! The summaries under the samples might need to be worked on, but other than that I think that they should remain in the article. -- Underneath-it-All 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Underneath-it-All, listen to the samples I picked the best part of the songs--hottie 17:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the audio samples are great; look at featured articles like Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey and Phil Collins. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Hi Journalist you gave Rossrs a barnstar before because he added a sample of "We belong together" would you give me a barnstar because I added audio samples. Just wondering lol--hottie 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the samples are great too - you're making some real improvements to this article. When musician/singer articles get nominated for featured article status, there's usually someone who objects if the article doesn't have samples. You'll need to add copyright and fair use info when you get more time - check out the Mariah or Kylie samples to see what I mean. Rossrs 21:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the fair use rationales so quickly. I've been thinking that a sample from Evita would be good. I think we could afford one more. Reason : because she underwent vocal coaching to sing a style of music she was never expected to sing, and silenced a bunch of critics who said she couldn't do it. It would be nice also to balance the dance/pop samples with a ballad sample. Do you think "Don't Cry For Me Argentina?" or "You Must Love Me" would be ok? Let me know what you think. Rossrs 11:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure Rossrs, I like that song btw. I also added audio samples of "Vogue, "Rain", "sorry", "Nothing Really Matters", "Music" and "Material Girl" so just go on their articles if you want to hear it.--hottie 15:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You've been busy. Thanks, I like "You Must Love Me" too. Rossrs 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Should a small discography section be added to the article? I see that the Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey articles all list their studio albums and most successful singles. I'm also currently working on a section detailing Madonna's acting career. -- Underneath-it-All 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a number-ones box before but Red-White-Blue removed it.--hottie 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please put a better picture of Madonna at the top of the article? That one is rather poor. I tried to change it, but it was reverted. Nwdavis 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't upload unfree-licensed media for the purpose of replacing free, reusable media. Do, however, see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for examples of letters that you can write to the copyright-holders of media that you find in order to ask them to re-license their media under a free, reusable license. Commercial information providers are unlikely to be helpful, but you may have luck with fans who have taken their own photographs. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I thought we could use promotional posters, they only need to be scaled downd and on a low or mid quality. I think I read it somewhere on the fair use article or some place like that. Ramonojo 23:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we can, but only if there is no free alternative. If there is a free alternative we should use that, even if the image is of lesser quality. Rossrs 07:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Could a better papparazi photo be used? Such as the beautiful ones taken at Coachella? (Which I had the pleasure of attending) PatrickJ83 03:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A friend of my went to the coachella concert and he took pictures with his cellphone right from the screen. Could we use one of those instead? Or like PatrickJ83 said could we use papparazi pictures? Ramonojo 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If your friend is willing to release the pictures under a free, reusable license, they can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Just remember to include source and license information. If editors agree that they are superior to the ones that we have here, they are certain to be used. Jkelly 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he will agree but how can he do that all that jibber talk about free reusable license? does he only need to upload them or what? How do you do the license information?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/License_selection Jkelly 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about in the "Poorly written article" column, and the tyrants who think they own it. I changed the picture, it was changed back...but, meanwhile, explained why...and that was fine. I understood. Free vs. copyright images. Okay, that's fair. But I sign on this morning and I see that the section titles, and many of the other edits I spent close to 2 hours adding to the article have been reverted back to what they originally were before. This is why I didn't want to edit the article, I said that someone would come along and change it back to the way it was. The domineering attitude when it comes to certain editors is frustrating, and a bit insulting. Nwdavis 06:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1st, your picture doesn't have a source, 2nd no need the change the headers, 3rd I re-added some of your edits, 4th please don't write "#18" instead write it "number eighteen", 5th the extras infos should be put in the song articles/album articles, and you deleted some important stuff.--hottie 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who know anything about written English knows it is standard practice to write numerals of one digit (i.e. 1-9) as the full word (one to nine) and numbers of two or more digits as the numeral itself. So hottie, one DOES NOT write "number eighteen", but 18, or #18 or no. 18. Ask any journalist.

If you know that what you wrote was in step to the progression of the article but someone out of arrogance came behind you and reverting your writings back to *their* version, then simply change it back. Wikipedia is not the place for contributor arrogance. One persons text is sanctified and no one owns these articles. - the real avenger 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A certain someone DOES have a habit of pompously monopolizing the editing around here, and in every other article he so gallantly graces. Possessing the seeming attitude that others need to check in with him before they DARE touch what he's marked. Sorry but if you aren't old enough to remember when "Vogue" was on the radio, then perhaps instead you should stick to editing articles your generation would know about; like the Spongebob Squarepants. -- Incognito9810 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I was a bit surprised to see the article title is not "Madonna (singer)". I know she also acts, is a song producer etc. but that applies to many other singers. Why "entertainer"?

--Gennaro Prota 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have wondered this myself. Prince is at Prince (artist), for example. Jkelly 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Madonna (singer) : "I moved the page to, Madonna (entertainer), because she sings, composes, runs her own label, she dances, she acts, and writes books. The only other term that vies with entertainer is entrepreneur, and it may be more accurate. User:Hyacinth 23:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No reason this can't be discussed further if anyone feels that "entertainer" is not the best option. Rossrs 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the original "mover" has some point, of course. But there are two issues: many other singers have the same many-sidedness of activities; "(entertainer)" is inconsistent with all other titles and, to me (I'm a non-native speaker), suggests more something like a showman than a singer/actress/producer. Maybe that's just me, though. --Gennaro Prota 20:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I can't think of another way of naming it though...... Maybe somebody else will be able to. Rossrs 14:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

With absolutely no offense intended, I think saying she is an "actress", "dancer" or "author" is a bit exaggerate. Writing one or two books is not enough to become a writer and occasionally acting is different from being an actor. I think we should just use "Madonna (singer)". After all Andrea Bocelli has written a book and several articles but no one in Italy dreams of calling him a writer (though he could well qualify, being quite an educated person and having a degree in law). Please, do not flame... I'm just applying some good sense and I have nothing against Madonna. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Madonna_artist" could be possibly confused with (as Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French say) "a" Madonna, mother of God, used in artwork. PatrickJ83 03:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone confuses the artist with the artwork, well, yes. Then probably he will confuse "Prince (artist)" with a portrayed aristocrat (of his own choice) as well ;) --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries. This article is having numerous edits made every day but most people are not using edit summaries (except for Underneath-it-All). It doesn't have to be in detail - just some indication of what's been done to make it easier for other editors to see this at a glance. Thanks Rossrs 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the article. The reason is not that I think the article is perfect as it now stands, but because I think it is wrong to revert to an old undated version of the article, just because it is the preference of one editor. Doing this reverts not only the edits that are being disputed, but also numerous reasonable edits that have also been made, that were aimed at fixing grammar, spelling, punctuation etc, as well as removing POV. These changes should not be disputed, and they also should not be reverted, but they have been reverted several times now. Please edit only the parts that need to be changed rather than taking the lazy way out and copy/pasting/reverting to an old version that is full of errors. The article still needs a lot of work, but we need to move forward with it, not continue to drag ourselves back over and over to a previous bad version. Rossrs 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the description of the song in the song file thingy the actual meaning of the song? PatrickJ83 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

~Yes, that is what the song is about. It was one of the reasons Erotica was banned in some countries. ~~AcidRock 4 May 2006

what is it about...? i heard it was about a minor who is coming to terms with his homosexuality.....i think it said that in the GHV2 sleevenotes, is there another theory..?

I have spoken to many Madonna fans who are disgusted with the way Madonna's wiki page has been destroyed. The headers are absolutely ridiculous. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE ALBUM HEADER/YEAR DISCRIPTIONS! I, as tons of others, do not care what Mariah Carey, or Kylie Minogue's pages have. This is totally unacceptable. Madonna changes completely with each project, and to lump two or three albums together under one heading that you, (basically Rossrs who has no concept of Madonna), have taken upon yourself to describe with your own viewpoint as an 'Up or Down', is a disgrace. Each album is a new era. Please take this into consideration and fix, because I am telling you, the Madonna fans are now discussing this in droves, and you're going to have massive amounts of them reverting back to the old way whether you like it or not. It makes sense to make everyone happy, leave your point of view at the door, and title the headers by each era, or in this case, each album. As it is now, the page looks atrocious.Flybye 11:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, basically not me. I haven't named a single header. Perhaps you should actually read my edits in the article before you comment on them. I've made the suggestion to use this style but I'm not the only one who holds this viewpoint. So I have no concept of Madonna. OK, this is my concept of Madonna - that she is one of the most innovative, successful, complex, multifaceted, creative and influential entertainers, perhaps of all-time. One of maybe 3 or 4 globally iconic women of the 20th century, and one of the very few entertainers who has transcended racial, social and geographic barriers in terms of fame if not mass approval. I also realize that she is not just about her albums - the albums are merely the vehicles by which she conveys herself. How very superficial and shallow of you not to notice this. So explain to me please, exactly what part of the Madonna concept I fail to get. Each album is an event, complete with a new pose, a new attitude, a new mantra, a new video, a new producer, a new pair of underpants... blah, blah, big deal. But enough about me. Back to you. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite happy to reduce her unique accomplishments to a series of album titles, chart positions and hairstyles. I'd say you don't quite grasp the concept of Madonna and you certainly miss the concept of Wikipedia by a mile.

The Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey articles are worth mentioning because they are seen as among the best articles on Wikipedia, because rather than bleat on about album X was released on date X and sold X copies (yawn) they cover the artists in some depth. This is what the Madonna article is lacking, and why a previous version was stripped of its featured article status. Opening the sections up into a chronological sequence rather than keeping to the restrictive album titles is a way of expanding the discussion and giving it the depth it lacks. Structurally it puts the Madonna article into the same stylistic category as, Albert Einstein for example. It's more credible, more authoritative and more encyclopedic. As it currently stands, if someone who had never heard of Madonna, Minogue or Carey read just these three articles, they could be forgiven for considering Madonna to be the less substantial of the trio, because the article is lacking. This disparity is what a number of editors are attempting to fix. If you want a Madonna fansite, think again. There are numerous of them about, and if you want a clone of one of those, this is not the right place. For all the shortcomings of the article, the aim is to elevate it to a substantial point of reference. Not just a list of hit singles. The Madonna fans who are discussing this in droves, should spend a little time reading Wikipedia's policies, and perhaps leaf through an encyclopedia to see how it differs from a fan magazine or a fan website. To put it simply, compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. You're not doing that. Compare this to other encyclopedic articles, not the fanzine articles that you seem to approve of.

Agreed, the individual titles could be improved, but the overall structure is sound. The content is still too fannish in tone, and a lot of the details could and should be relegated to the individual album and single articles. Finally, please remain polite - you have no business singling me out for comment especially when it takes the form of an accusation, and when you have no idea who I am or what my "concept of Madonna" is. I don't know whether to be offended or highly amused, because if you knew me, and I'm glad you don't, you'd know what a ludicrous comment that is..... Rossrs 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, to put Madonna's entire life into categories of individual albums is very wrong and does Madonna a disservice. Madonna is not just her albums, they are a part of her. The 'new' headers are ideal - they define her career by overall themes. Kylie and Mariah's pages are referenced because they, or at least Kylie's (unlike the Madonna page) are featured articles. Are Kylie and Mariah's lives/careers defined solely by each of their albums? No. Futhermore your nasty attitude is QUITE unneccesary. PatrickJ83 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah Flybre, I have spoken with my co-Madonna fans and we love it the headers are absolutely amazing. I agree with PatrickK83, Madonna's life is not just about her albums. I don't care who are those Madonna fans you are talking about Flybre it might be just you. The page looks hot too.--2hot4u2handle 05:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Madonna's page is a mess and needs a complete overhaul. It's all over the place. What did you people do? The headliners have to go! Awful. Madonna IS NOT Mariah or Kylie who just produce the same stuff a new way each and every time. Each Madonna album has a persona. No one should be putting Evita and Sex together. Are you nuts? The fans have spoken. Remove it, or else. Maddyfan 06:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Or else what? You'll send Sean Penn after us? You're going down the track to get banned m'dear! PatrickJ83 08:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maddyfan this is no place for making threatening statements. You're entitled to an opinion, but express it politely or nobody is going to listen to it. Rossrs 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I take it back. After thoroughly reading through all of the text, although it may need extra work, is actually not that bad. I've add more info about the Confessions album and tour, and included I'm Going to Tell You A Secret, which is due for DVD release soon. I also added back in the Hung Up caption. Maddyfan 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On the article about comercial ups and downs someone said that Madonna performed a cover of Imagine at the Tsunami Aid by the end of the year. That is completely false, the Tsunami Aid Concert was televised in January and Madonna recorded her performance during January of 2005.

Another thing is on the acting section they changed it to say that in 2006 Madonna had lend her voice for Arthur And The Minimoys, the movie is coming out in 2006 but her voice was recorded on 2004 and not on 2006. Ramonojo 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the Tsunami Aid Concert date and when she recorded her parts for Arthur And The Minimoys. Thanks for pointing these things out! -- Underneath-it-All 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks a tad strange shoved in at the bottom of her music career at the end. Couldn't we give it it's own section, like Biography, Movie Career, Personal Life? Maddyfan 06:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Rossrs 08:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Documentaries

• Should we make a little subsection in the film section to emphasize the documentaries instead of keeping this article: Madonna documentaries? I think the creator of this saw the documentaries as part of a series or at least as "special" films and made therefore the article. But the way the article is now, it's of no use as stand-alone in my opinion. I'm adding a merge tag on the Madonna (entertainer) article. Bisco 13:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I pulled the info from that page, over to the Madonna film and acting section. Maddyfan 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, that picture is such an eyesore. The image isn't even in focus. We have to find something better for Madonna. I found a picture, sourced it, and it was removed. Someone needs to pull rank here, find a better image, and upload it quickly. There's no reason why a beauty such as Madonna should not have a picture that truly represents her. She's the most photographed woman in history and this is the best we could come up with? Why on earth would anyone want to keep this one? Maddyfan 10:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

because it's a free use image. It's not a great image, but because Wikipedia aims to use only free content where possible, and always a free image as first choice, a free image, even a not particularly good one, will be used over a fair use copyrighted image. The image you chose was very good, so maybe it could be used later in the article. We can't replace the free image, much as we may want to, unless we replace it with another free image. It's just a matter of time before someone finds a good, free image, but until then, we have to live with what we have. Rossrs 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were to get a live image from a fan who would agree to turn the rights over, we could use it? 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

yes. Rossrs 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to find a live image from the Confessions Tour that would be cool--2hot4u2handle 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Images of Madonna are released to the press every day for free, fair-use display. Wiki is exempt from this then? PatrickJ83 22:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear more about this too. Maddyfan 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Press release by religious book writer claims Madonna is a real Madonna meaning future, already chose bride of God ...

• Madonna BangsMadonna as Real Madonna & predicted children with God

I think the section is a collection of random thoughts that clutch at anything Italian without making a strong point. We know she is of partly Italian heritage but her Italian heritage has not been an overriding theme in her career and that's proven by this section which boils down a 20 year career into a short list of Italian references, some of which are very flimsy. If she's ever reflected a strong ethnicity in her music, it's been Latin (and I'm not suggesting a section on her Latin references). Does the Italian influence section add anything significant to the article or could we get along without it? I think we could easily delete the section. Rossrs 12:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes some interesting points, but the section Early Life comments on her Italian heritage and I think that's all that is needed. Madonna has taken influence from many cultures, but it would be silly to write a section on all of those. I say we should delete the section because it does not really contribute much to the article or to people's knowledge of Madonna. -- Underneath-it-All 14:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete: it's only some trivia and some "good for nothing". Bisco 08:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagee. Madonna Italian heritage has inspired a lot of her work, including her Italian-Catholic upbringing, her rebellion against her strict heavily religious Italian father, and the Catholic Church, Rome, the Pope, everything. I understand that Madonna has been inspired by other cultures in her work, but nothing is more present than her own Italian heritage. Italians do it better, anyone? It's a good subject to keep. Maddyfan 02:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But why does it need it's own subheading? If there is a point to be made, can't it be made in the general discussion of her work? Or -- if there was a new section that discussed her cultural influence/references/reactions for and against her/criticisms etc, which I think is needed anyhow -- could it be better discussed as part of a wider context? Rossrs 10:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You probably have a point, although, Madonna's Italian-Catholic background has spanned all through her entire career. If it doesn't get a category, where exactly should it go? Maddyfan 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

there's no hard and fast rule, so we can be somewhat creative, and that's the really exciting part of it - we come up with something good and maybe it will inspire other editors to use our ideas in other articles. Some other featured articles have a broad section that allows for discussion of wider themes. Examples : Mariah Carey has a "themes and musical style" section. Madonna could have "themes and influences" perhaps - in this we could discuss her Italian heritage/references, along with her religious and sexual themes plus whatever else we think important. Rather than put a microscope on one theme, which is inherently POV, create a section in which the various themes could be discussed. We could probably bring the Kabbalah section into it as well. By POV I mean if we have a section about Italian influences, we also need to have one about Catholicism and one about sexuality. Kylie Minogue has "image and celebrity status", The Beatles has "influences and music", Vivien Leigh (ok she's an actress but even so....) has "Critical comments". Madonna is such an interesting and original personality and the article does not yet address this in any depth. It's still all about the hit singles. I'd love about half of the blow by blow commentary on her singles etc to be moved into her discography, and the individual album and singles pages, so that there is room to discuss what she really is about. That's just my thought, and my hope, but I can see myself being overruled on it. Sorry, I don't mean to go off onto a tangent, but I see this as a way of keeping the Italian influence stuff, but making it more meaningful and putting it into a more relevant context. I think it would improve the article. Rossrs 09:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a section on her "themes and influences" would be a good addition to the article. I agree that Madonna is a very interesting person and that she has taken a lot of influences from all different places and incorporated them into her music and videos. The section could talk about her Italian, religious and Kabbalah influences. I also think that her position in popular culture should be discussed as well, as she is seen by many as a pop culture icon. -- Underneath-it-All 16:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

She's also had many Latin influences also. I also like the idea about a section about "themes and influences" or at least about "influences". Ramonojo 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this is being debated. She has stated many times that she wouldn't be as successful as she is today if not for her father's influence. She has stated that her father is the son of poor Italian immigrants who instilled in her father a strong work ethic. Much of her career is founded on a rebellion against her father and the Catholic Church. Her father is Italian American, and his brand of Catholicism is the Italian brand (there is a difference between Italian Catholic, Mexican Catholic, Irish Catholic, etc.). In 1990, when the Pope called for a ban of Blond Ambition, Madonna said it really hurt because she's Italian. (I think he even attempted to make it illegal for Madonna to step foot in Italy.)

So, let's recount: her entire career is based on the influence of her father, a man who is full-blooded Italian. Is it really such a stretch, then, to think that her Italian heritage may've had an influence on her life and career? She very rarely explicitly says so, but she doesn't really need to. Actually, she has said so, but apparently some of you consider the times she has said so to constitute trivial "grasping" at things Italian. Um ... such as her very name? Is that trivial grasping? I can't fathom a more Italian sounding name than Madonna Ciccone.

The section at this point is a stub. Give it time to develop. And, no, I'm in no way biased in this by the fact that I am Italian American and am also the one who started that section. :) -- Andrew Parodi 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should this not be debated? You make some excellent points - Madonna's Italian heritage has obviously had a huge impact on her life and career. On the other hand, the discussion of it does not really get much deeper than her wearing an "Italians do it better" T Shirt, and joking about her "Italian thighs". The problem is that it is an important subject, dealt with trivially. There is much more to be said on it. For example, let's get her quote about the Pope's comment hurting her into the article where it belongs. It's so much more important and revealing than most of what is there. Furthermore her Italian heritage is not her only influence, so if we are going to talk about influences we need to discuss them from a wider vantage point. In some ways Madonna has reflected a multitude of influences and as she is herself quite influential we need to go into her own influences in more depth. I've moved the Italian heritage information under a new header "Themes and influences". I would like to see more research done to discuss the way she has reflected her Italian heritage so that we can say something worthwhile and substantial. I have only slightly changed your text, but I maintain that we can do better with it. I've removed the reference to visiting her father's vineyard. That's of no consequence - if he'd opened a pizza parlour chances are she would have visited it. With regards to giving this time because the section is a stub, the whole point of my raising this subject, is to raise the comments relating to her influences from a stub to a section. Giving it time to develop is not the point as I'm pushing to develop it now as part of the general push to raise the quality and completeness of this article. Rossrs 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are aiming for. You started a section some time ago headed "Italian influences". I agree it's worth discussing in a broader context, and after a few other editors agreed, I placed it under the heading "themes and influences" but retained your original header "Italian influences". Despite all the additions you've made you have not addressed any of the points as "influences". There is no question that Madonna is an Italian American but there is no purpose in stating and restating that fact without putting it into some kind of context or explaining how this has influenced her work. You chose the heading "Italian influences" which lists a series of connections to Italy without discussing them as "influences".

Her name is a fact - so how has it influenced her? Her commendable work ethic is attributed to her father being Italian. How so? His work ethic is not a result of his being Italian. It may be the result of him having an impoverished upbringing which he could have had anywhere. A strong work ethic is not specifically or exclusively an Italian trait, so how is it an influence? Christopher Flynn's comment is interesting but there is no suggestion that Madonna was influenced by it. Basically it says that someone told Madonna, an American Italian, that she has Italian features. This comment should have come as no surprise to her, so how could it have influenced her? The Roman Catholic issue, which goes into more explanation about the location of the Vatican and the ratio of Catholics/non Catholics than is necessary in an article about Madonna, fails to make the one relevent connection - ie how was her Catholicism interpreted in her work as an influence. The sentence "Much of Madonna's career has also been founded on a rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church" is an excellent opening for what looked like being a strong paragraph, but then instead it went off telling us about where the Vatican is etc, and then jumped to the Pope condemning her, without explaining what she had done and how her actions were influenced by, and were a reaction against, the Catholic Church. Then there is a paragraph of the references to Italy as seen in her work, and some of them are very flimsy. It's POV to narrow down the discussion to this level of trivia without giving equal time to her influences as an "American American". Her references to other cultures have been far stronger than the very insubstantial examples given here. Finally, the reference to Sean Penn is inappropriate as it is not our role to psychoanalyse our subject and suggest that "perhaps" it was Penn's vaguely Italian appearance that attracted Madonna. Conjecture, speculation and the drawing of conclusions have no place in an article. Rossrs 11:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading your response, it is obvious that you don't like the idea of an Italian section. Why? I wonder.

How has her name influenced her? (Um, I don't know. Is a name at all important to a person's identity?) How has her father's Italian heritage influenced her? How has rebellion against the Catholic Church been a part of her career? Have you paid any attention to Madonna for the more than 20 years she's been a public presence?

No, Madonna has not made a big deal about the influence of her Italian ancestry, because it's not NECESSARY for her to do that. Look at her name. Look at her father. Look at the direction of most of her work.

And are you basically saying that we can't say that an Italian American looks Italian? And for your information, not all Italian Americans have faces that look like Roman statues. Not all Italian Americans have been told they look classically Italian. I have red hair and pale white skin. I am never told I look Italian/Roman, and yet I have as much Italian ancestry as Madonna does; we're both half-Italian. You can be Italian and still not "look" what others think of as Italian. Madonna, on the other hand, has a very classically Italian face.

Hmm.... Madonna's face. I wonder, has that ever been important to her career? Oh, you're probably right. Not a big deal. Yeah, the woman who has basically made a legend of herself off of her face ... nah, not important to talk about her face, is it? That's just "trivia."

By the way, did you know that the Crucifix is specifically a Catholic symbol? You'll hardly ever find one in a Protestant church. And as we "speak," Madonna is touring the country and hanging off of a Crucifix as she sings "Live to Tell" [3]. How is Catholicism related to her Italian heritage? Perhaps because it was her Italian American father who raised her in a strict Catholic tradition? Perhaps because the Catholic Church is headquartered in Italy.

What a load of crap! Madonna is NOT hanging off a crucifix on her current tour, she is hanging off a cross, imitating a crucifix. The crucifix is a CHRISTIAN symbol, not a Catholic one. Of course they are in Protestant churches. Protestant's just don't hang them off beads. This is an encyclopedia, please get your facts correct. Paul75 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all Catholics are Italian Catholics, but Madonna's father WAS and IS. Can you get that through your head?

Perhaps the biggest controversy of Madonna's career involved the very Catholic-themed Like a Prayer video wherein she sustained stigmata. (Though it does rarely happen in other denominations, stigmata is specifically a Roman Catholic phenomenon.)

Once again, a CHRISTIAN issue, not Catholic specific.....Paul75 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In Madonna's work, her Catholic upbringing is intertwined with her Italian heritage.

If you think other ethnic groups have been more influential to her than Italian/Italian American, there's nothing stopping you from including reference to those groups. -- Andrew Parodi 11:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: About hard work, no, it is not specifically an Italian trait. But Madonna related her father's strong work ethic to the fact that he comes from Italian immigrants. You can whine and complain all you want about this, but Madonna put her strong work ethic within an Italian context. Her grandparents were hard workers because they were poor people from Italy; her father was a hard worker because he was taught that by his parents who were poor people from Italy; Madonna is a hard worker because she was taught that by her father, who was taught that by his Italian parents.

Many different people are hard workers. But why can't we say that Italians are? Can you only use a description of a people if that description does not apply to others as well? -- Andrew Parodi 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One more Addendum: Christopher Flynn can basically be credited with setting Madonna up to be the person she is today. He was the first person to tell her she was beautiful, and he put that in an Italian context (and he told her she was beautiful at a point in her life when she thought she was ugly, and she was shocked to hear him say that; if you don't believe me, read the article from the COVER STORY from TIME MAGAZINE from 1985!) Could this at all be notable? Hmm ... again, I wonder. The man who encouraged Madonna to take the first step toward becoming the woman she is today, nah, not notable. The fact that he filled her with self-esteem by telling her she looked Roman and was beautiful for looking Roman. Nah, not notable. The video for her first #1 hit, perhaps the defining song of her career, filmed in Italy, nah, again, you're right ... absolutely no significance. Grasping at straws, conjecture, and trivia. (Yeah, right.) -- Andrew Parodi 12:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever relevance your points have is lost in the article because you have not placed them into a context. Rant as much as you want, you are not addressing the points I raised, or improving the article. You've used the word "context" several times on the talk page, but the problem is that in the article you haven't placed your points into a context. I think the "Italian influence" section is a good idea, poorly executed. Nothing more. I've commented on your contribution but you have chosen to take it personally and have reacted with a petulant outburst rather than a coherent discussion. I said nothing about you but kept my comments to your writing. You've reacted emotionally against me and I've never seen my words twisted and thrown back at me in quite the manner that you have twisted and thrown them back at me. I have no idea what you're accusing me of when you say "Why? I wonder". Do you think I have some agenda or motive other than trying to improve this article? You've stated that I don't know what I'm talking about ("Have you paid any attention to Madonna for the more than 20 years she's been a public presence? - yes, I have. Since 1982. Which makes 24 years). You've resorted to sarcasm, which I think is a cowardly way of trying to intimidate someone and to me it always suggests desperation. You have been inappropriately offensive ("Can you get that through your head?"). Remain civil. If you choose to respond to anything I write, comment on what I say, but refrain from making it a personal assault. Rossrs 13:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of presenting fact at POV. That is indeed a personal comment, because "POV" stands for "Point of View." The underlying suggesting being that the "Point of View" I was expressing was my own ... and then you labeled my "Point of View" as being "conjecture, speculation and the drawing of conclusions (that)have no place in an article." And now you have come back and called me cowardly and accused me of trying to intimidate you. How anyone can be intimidated via the internet with regard to an article about Madonna is beyond me. But I'll set that aside.

Stating that a comment is POV is not a "personal comment" as it is part of Wikipedia's culture and policy to eliminate POV when identified. What I labelled as "conjecture, speculation etc...." was the reference to Sean Penn "perhaps" being chosen as a husband because he looks Italian. I didn't say I felt intimidated by you, and I don't. I said that sarcarsm usually suggests to me someone who is trying to intimidate. I also think sarcasm is cowardly because it ridicules and belittles someone's viewpoint without necessarily discussing it. I don't like it in real life and I don't like it here. Rossrs 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should respond to this since the hatchet apparently was buried below, but let me just respond here and then I'll drop the whole issue.

It is your own personal interpretation that sarcasm is an attempt to intimidate. Just as I interjected my own personal/emotional response to this debate, you interjected your own personal interpretation of my use of sarcasm.

True. Rossrs 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that "POV" is a part of Wikipedia's "culture," but we all know that those words stand for "point of view." Whose point of view? Well, when you said that my edits were "point of view" edits you were obviously saying that they were my point of view. And then when you said they were conjecture, speculation, etc." you were basically saying that my point of view is conjecture, speculation, etc. I found that insulting because this is a topic that is very important to me.

I'm sorry that you found it insulting. Please read what I wrote again. The comment about conjecture and speculation was right at the very end, after my comments about the Sean Penn bit. That was the only issue that I intended to describe as speculation and conjecture, and it was speculation and conjecture - as you said further in this discussion, it was flimsy. I did not intend to dismiss everything you said. What I considered to be POV what not so much what you wrote but that it was the only one of a myriad of influences. It did not mean I was dismissing what you wrote - I felt that it needed to be added to in order to place it in a suitable context, and I should have just made the edits instead of commenting on them. If you still feel insulted, I'm sorry, but I feel that you are not taking my comments in the manner I meant them. Rossrs 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to use the Italian excuse, but like I said, it tends to be true in my experience: Italians are often emotional people, especially about things to do with their Italian heritage. I realize that's probably an unusual quirk on my part, but for my own reasons, Madonna's Italian heritage is very important to me. In fact, when she first became famous in 1984, I thought she was from Italy. Andrew Parodi 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is this: if you don't like the section as it is, why not contribute something to it rather than come back here and bash everything that I've contributed? It's not my role to try to write things in a way that pleases you. This is Wikipedia, a place where people are encouraged to make their contributions. "Be bold," as the saying goes, and add something yourself. -- Andrew Parodi 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how Wikipedia works, and I've made substantial edits to this and numerous articles. I raised the subject here rather than making a radical change. I have tried to discuss this rather than simply go through and delete and change what I think is wrong. You are under no obligation to please me and I don't ask or expect you to, but I do have a clear idea of what is encyclopedic and what you've written isn't, in my opinion. I have every right to express my viewpoint, and you have every right to dispute it, ignore it...whatever. I intend working on the section. Rossrs 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: And if I react emotionally to this topic, is that surprising? We're talking about the biggest icon of my ethnicity. Try telling a black person that Michael Jackson's black heritage is of no relevance to his career, or that the section they've worked on with regard to Michael Jackson's black heritage is POV and not relevant, and see what kind of reaction you'll get. I don't mean to endorse a stereotype, but in my experience this is generally true: Italians/Italian Americans tend to be emotional people, particularly when talking about their Italian heritage. -- Andrew Parodi 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not surprising but is it necessary? Rossrs 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question. -- Andrew Parodi 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I do understand the question. I was just surprised that anyone would ask such a question, as it seems obvious. My answer is: Yes ... Absolutely. Again, it may be my Italian heritage here, but I can't imagine life without an open expression of emotions. In Italy and Italian culture is it referred to as being "passionate," and it's what Italians are famous for being. I do realize that such emotionalism is perhaps surprising to more Anglo-aligned people. (And, by the way, this is another similarity between Jewish culture and Italian/Italian American culture; both cultures are rather emotionally expressive.)

I remember learning in psychology class that the part of the brain that governs emotions is the same part of the brain that governs memory. I am a very emotional person, and I also have a very good memory. Maybe it's a genetic variation of people on and descended from that peninsula.

To be more concise, I can't imagine a life of trying to suppress the emotions because out of emotional expression comes a great many wonderful things in life. Just look at Madonna herself. She is a woman who has raised a great many emotions over the more than 20 years of her career.

Many people may not realize it, but in many ways there is a great deal of difference between Italian/Latin culture and Anglo Saxon culture. I realize that in Anglo Saxon culture emotionalism isn't really something that is appreciated, and is perhaps even something that wants to be avoided. Andrew Parodi 01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I was surprised by your reaction, that's all, but I understand it better now. Rossrs 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, while I won't curb my emotional reaction to things, I realize that some contexts are more appropriate for my emotional reactions. I'm sure we'd both agree that going on an emotional rant is more appropriate on an article talk page than on the main article. Had I more fully developed this section of the article earlier on my own, this section of the article would've looked like my emotional entries on this talk page. So, that's come to be my policy here on Wikipedia: if I ever initiate an article or section that I am emotionally close to, I try to keep myself from developing it too fully on my own because I realize it's going to turn into an emotional rant. -- Andrew Parodi 05:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

About her work ethic: I've hesitated to mention this, because it is a controversial topic, but here goes. The book I read a while ago called "The Jewish Phenomenon" [4] ranked incomes in this country with ethnicity/cultural background. The point was to assess the level of financial success juxtaposed with people's ethnicity/culture. At the top of the list were Jewish people. That is, the book (which is written by a Jewish man, so don't anyone jump on me about this) says that the Jewish population is the most financially successful segment of the population. Second is the Japanese American segment of the population. And third is the Italian American segment of the population.

My point being, there is a distinction between working hard and earning a great deal of money for your hard work. I've known a lot of very hard working people who never made more than minimum wage. Madonna, on the other hand, is very hard working and she makes millions. And, according at least to this book, she is a part of an ethnicity that largely does the same: works very hard and makes a great deal of money as a result.

The book also says that the Italian American community learned a lot by watching the Jewish community, particularly with regard to education. It says that the Italian American community noticed how the Jewish community was, within two generations, going from being poor to being wealthy -- and they realized that education played a big part in that; so they decided to impress upon their children to not only work hard, but to attend college. I recall a little story about Madonna's Italian American father being very disappointed when she walked away from her full college scholarship to become a dancer in New York.

And speaking of New York, Madonna is specifically a New York success story. New York has the biggest Italian American community in the country. New York also has the biggest Jewish American community in the country. Many have commented on the similarities between Italian American culture and Jewish American culture. Jewish people have been very important in Madonna's career (ever hear of a man named Seymour Stein?). Could there be any significance to the fact that Madonna comes from an ethnicity similar to that of many people who have been very important to her career and life? Nah, again, probably just POV, conjecture, etc. -- Andrew Parodi 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You honestly had my full support on this section until I got to the sarcastic twist at the end. OK I'll pretend I didn't see it. What you've said here is interesting, and it's well presented. If you had supported your viewpoint in the article in the same manner that you've supported it here (except in a more concise manner), we wouldn't be having this exchange. Some of these points, especially with a reference would be very valuable. Andrew, let's bury the hatchet. I have nothing against you, I don't even know you, and I would much rather work with you than against you. Rossrs 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hesitated to go into deeper detail in the main article because I feared it would all be interpreted as a "vanity edit," or something of the sort. As you have seen, I am very "close" to this topic and tend to take it rather personally. I didn't grow up in an Italian area, and during my childhood and teen years Madonna was perhaps the main "Italian" presence in my life, as sad as I realize that is now.

My fear was that if I went too in depth with all of this on the main article, then it would come out too personal on my part, be a "vanity edit," etc. I basically just wanted to start the section and let others take it over.

That makes sense. It's working out for the best despite the rocky road it's taken :-) Rossrs 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the controversial nature of it all. I'm sure if I went to the main page and said, "The Jewish population makes a great deal of money. The Italian American and Jewish population are very similar in many ways. Madonna's career is largely founded on New York, where the largest Jewish and Italian American communities are are found," then someone would've objected. Discussion of money and Jewish culture, for obvious reasons, is very taboo; even the author of the book I mention above, who is a Jewish man, mentions that in the book he wrote. Andrew Parodi 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits : I have made some edits. I have changed the header from "Italian influences" to "Italian influences, family and Catholicism". I don't see a way of seperating the influences of her two parents, as well as the influences of Catholicism without making the discussion fragmented, so I think that keeping them together as one point of discussion is probably the way to go. I think that this together is/are the major influence/s of her but as it's not the only, I've tried to think what other influences need to be discussed, in order of impact. I've started a "film stars" paragraph as this has been a strong influence and one that she has both referenced and discussed. I think another paragraph is needed for musical influences. So far I've found a quote about "These Boot's Are Made For Walking" by Nancy Sinatra and references to Goldfrapp in relation to her latest album. We need more before we can write it, but as a musician, musical influences should be discussed. I think then some of the other cultural or stylistic influences such as Latin ("La Isla Bonita", "Who's That Girl" etc), Japanese ("Rain", "Nothing Really Matters" etc) and others, could be discussed as a section of "other influences". I'm not quite sure how to achieve this. By the way, I have attempted to build upon what you had already contributed, and there is only one section I deleted completely (the Sean Penn paragraph) and a couple of bits I condensed. Other than that I've tried to underline that all these things were influences, and have used references from some old interviews that I have. Rossrs 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Italian heritage, family and Catholicism" is a better subheading as the word "influence" is the main header so to repeat it is redundant. Rossrs 11:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize the Sean Penn reference was flimsy. And, to be honest, I don't have a source for it. I read it in an interview in the late 1980s; I spent the better part of my childhood and teen years poring over Madonna's interviews. But a lightbulb went off in my head when I put that statement she made (that Sean Penn looked like her father) together with the fact that Sean Penn is part Italian. But you're probably right, within the context of this article, and without a source, it is a flimsy reference. -- Andrew Parodi 01:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit of Madonna-reading over the last day or so, and in the "Goddess" biography the author asserts that Madonna chased Penn because he was a respected, up-and-coming actor and was part of the acting fraternity that she wanted to be a part of. She was also attracted (at least to start with) by his "bad boy" persona. Basically it says that she genuinely loved him and was strongly attracted to him, but ultimately he was too high maintenance with his violent temper. There's no mention of her being attracted to his Italian appearance which is not to say that she wasn't, but in a very lengthy discussion of the whole Sean Penn episode, it's not mentioned. Rossrs 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all surprising that it is not mentioned. It is a very obscure footnote to say the least, and she made the reference in a very obscure interview with, I believe, Us Weekly, in about 1988. Hardly an important reference, and only someone like me would remember it.

I was going to mention, though, if you are interested in something of a "psychoanalysis" of Madonna, I think this page is a good place to start: THE ARTISANS. David Keirsey, a psychologist, claims that Madonna is an ESTP. I think he is right. I based this guide of mine on his work. Eerily, later realized that Madonna is the same personality type as my own mother [5]. I was wondering if maybe something about this could be mentioned in the article. I hesitated to include it because it is based on the idea of only one psychologist. Still, he is a PhD, and his book, "Please Understand Me", has allegedly sold a few million copies. -- Andrew Parodi 04:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a little addition. Please, don't involve me into a flame. As a native Italian I can assure you that you cannot identify Italian with catholic, in any way. No more, at least. When Madonna began her career that was probably true and her name alone was enough for her to be considered blaspheme, but a lot of things have changed in Italy since then. Also, I have never ever heard of "Madonna" as a proper name; it is an *ancient* honorific title given to women, (cf. the French madamne) which now only belongs to the mother of Christ. It's my opinion that Madonna intentionally took some advantage from the shocking effect the name could have at that time (she could have chosen a different stage name); today it would be considered all but scandalous, anyway. As to the "working hard", is that referred to her father or to Madonna herself? —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 15:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Gennaro Prota: Interesting to have a "real" Italian give some input here. I'm sure what you say is true. I understand a lot has changed in Italy lately. But you have to take into account that Madonna comes from people who left Italy in the early 20th Century, when "Catholic" and "Italian" was still very closely tied. In fact, I actually have to disagree with you. At least according to the article on Italy, 87% of Italian citizens identify as Roman Catholic. That's pretty deeply Catholic if you ask me.

About her name, your comments back up some edits I made just a few days ago to the Italian influence section: some thought her name was shock value. Madonna was named after her mother, who was French Canadian, not Italian/Italian American. But Madonna herself has said that her name, Madonna Ciccone, is "very Italian." And, well, it is. The name Madonna is an Italian name; whether it is a common name for Italian citizens or not is another issue.

About the work ethic, yes, Madonna has only ever said that it was her father who taught her to work hard, and she related that to the fact that he descended from poor Italian immigrants. Madonna's mother died when she was very young (five or six, I think), and all I have ever read Madonna say about her mother is that she remembers her being very ill. I have never read/heard Madonna comment on the work ethic of her mother. -- Andrew Parodi 05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• "I'm sure what you say is true", "In fact, I actually have to disagree with you". Why not just saying you disagree :) Anyway, I know, if you go asking you can even get a higher percentage than 87% (though I find the number realistic). The point is: very few people are practising Catholic; most Italian get in touch with Catholicism *only*, and they don't pursue a real search of alternatives; but almost nobody accepts Catholicism in toto (everyone will have his own opinion about abortion and homosexuality, for instance; and the percentage of divorces, and cohabitation without marriage, is enormous). So be wary of the difference between what people say and what people do. As to the name, yes, "Ciccone" looks undoubtedly Italian, as well as "Veronica" and "Parodi" (all are real names/surnames of Italian people). "Louise" doesn't and "Madonna" is not a person name; it is just an Italian word. My question about "working hard" was "is it referred to Madonna or to Madonna's father?". I don't see singing as "working hard", especially if you consider the ratio earning/effort she reached (and their limited singing capabilities —again, please, don't take me wrong; I like some of her songs, and have nothing against here; as a musician however I can't ignore she is slightly tone-deaf and her success is out of proportion to her singing capabilities); anyway, my personal opinion, no need to make a federal case out of it. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you believe I'm actually writing a college research essay right now on the disproportion between her singing ability and her success? I agree that she is a bit tone deaf.

About the Catholic thing, the point I was making, the point of this section, is that Catholicism is deeply entwined in Italian culture. Whether Italians are practicing Catholics or not is a moot point here. The simple fact that 87% or more identify as Catholic is the point. That is overwhelmingly Catholic. Catholicism is a huge part of Madonna's act, and perhaps some people, namely Protestant non-Italians, would be interested/educated to learn the correlation between her Italian and Catholic heritage.

Oh, about the contradiction in my statements -- "I'm sure what you say is true..." "I have to disagree..." -- in between making those statements, I looked up the Wikipedia article on Italy. When I started to write that paragraph, I agreed with your statement; then I did the research. But I think that both statements still stand. I agree and disagree. On one hand, Italy is a very Catholic country because 87% identify as Catholic. On the other hand, not as many are practicing Catholics. Again, this may be a similarity to Judaism. I have known a lot of Jewish people who identify as "Jewish," but they are not religious people (such people often refer to themselves as "cultural Jews"). I suppose the point here is that Italian/Catholic is in many ways not just a religion, but also a culture, and that culture has been very important in Madonna's work. I recall reading an interview with Madonna few years ago where she said that despite her study of Kabballah, she still feels that "in her bones" she is Catholic. And, come to think of it, the authors of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Catholicism" even refer to Madonna as a Catholic "Artistic Mystic." (Interestingly, a reviewer of this book referred to Madonna as "an ethnic Catholic." I'd never heard that term before.) Andrew Parodi 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this sort of thing very interesting. I'm kind of familiar with this personality test - a while back one of my previous employers introduced it as a test, believe it or not, but they didn't hire or fire on the basis of it, and I got profiled etc. I think their aim was to raise self awareness.... anyway, whatever reason they had for doing it remains a mystery. I think it's a bit obscure for an encyclopedic article mainly because it would need a fair amount of background info supplied so that anyone reading it would know what it's about. I don't think the article is worse for its absence and I'm also mindful that the article is growing and growing and is getting quite huge. I found it very interesting that Madonna and Eva Peron are shown as of the same personality type. Fascinating stuff! Rossrs 12:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It was actually David Keirsey's son who e-mailed me and told me that Eva Peron is likely the same personality type as Madonna. He saw my guide about Madonna's personality type on Amazon.com.

David Keirsey refers to Madonna's personality type as "The Promoter," and when you look at it, that is exactly what both Madonna and Evita were. Madonna promoted herself, and Eva Peron promoted her own husband (and thereby, of course, herself). It was quite eerie for me to discover all of this. Here is my Amazon guide about Eva Peron, and I'm actually responsible for about 80% of the Wikipedia article on her.

But you're probably right that it's a little obscure to mention on the Madonna page. At best, perhaps the ESTP page could have a list of people believed to be that personality type, and Madonna could be listed there. And you're right, this Madonna page is getting very, very long.

Oh, about the personality type test being given at work, I think that's relatively common these days. The idea is to pair people with the kind of job their personality type works best with. -- Andrew Parodi 07:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Above, we were discussing David Keirsey's work on personality type. I just logged on to his official site, and I was surprised by what I found. They have added a picture of Madonna on the profile page, along with a picture of Eva Peron, confirming what David Keirsey Jr had told me he was considering some time ago: that Eva Peron and Madonna are the same personality type.

I noticed that the picture of Madonna is in fact a link. I clicked on the link, expecting it would link to Madonna's official site, or a fan site. Instead, I found that it links to the page I made on Amazon.com where I mention that Madonna is the same personality type as my own mother: http://keirsey.com/personality/spet.html -- Andrew Parodi 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just not making sense. I've checked a half dozen other artist wiki pages, and they've all used promotional material for their artist picture caption at the top of their pages. We're using screen caps, album covers, single covers, and even an Evita promo shot down below, but we're suppose to keep a crappy Live8 picture that barely even looks like Madonna because it's a free picture? None of this is making sense. We would be better off using a screen capture for Madonna's bio, then what is on there now. Someone has to look into this. Pictures of Madonna are out to the public, for public use everyday and we're even using them on here. Maddyfan 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you see articles that are using unfree images when free ones are available, it would be great if you would take the time to correct that. Jkelly 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because an image is free, doesn't mean it's the best one, or even one that should be used. The one being used currently for Madonna is blurred and the pixels are off. Maddyfan 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy the new Coachella picture added. I got permission from the author. Maddyfan 05:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, you should include all of the information you have about that image at Image:Madonnac.JPG. Right now someone has tagged it to be deleted for being unsourced. Jkelly 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a page devoted to popular entertainers and so on is going to be very difficult to pull off at any rate. The publics reactions and views on popular icons like Madonna are extreme. On the one hand, fans tend to be more than just fans, but completely absorbed by the media hype surrounding entertainers like Madonna, Michael Jackson or Elvis. At the same time, those who dislike such entertainers really dislike those entertainers.

The thing that is most distressing is that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and is therefore only an educational tool containing facts and information. However, Popular Music is a form of art and today, a form of commerce and therefore, opinion and personal viewpoints are integral to the public reaction and the success/failure of a cultural icons career, like Madonna.

I would personally suggest that pages like the one for Madonna only contain the facts, but that another section devoted to criticism be put in as well. After all, public opinion and reaction are documented are they not? Do they not play a part in the careers of popular icons? The key is how to seperate factual information from viewpoints based on the facts.

The key would be to include information on public reaction within the articles, giving equal emphasis, if possible to both negative and positive reactions to significant points in said artist/entertainer/icons career(s).

Opinions are certainly not factual, but do provide educational information on the history and/or public reactions to said individuals.

Any thoughts on this?

Incidentally, I think the label "popular music icon" is most appropriate for Madonna. She wears so many coats and is ambiguous at the very least to classification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.28.43 (talk • contribs)

You make some very valid points, and I agree with a lot of your comments. "Difficult to pull off" but not impossible. It's been done before, (see the painful journeys of the articles on Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey and Celine Dion), and fans are excellent contributors as they have the knowledge and the commitment. Self discipline is the difficult bit, but I think we're heading in the right direction here, although there is still a long way to go.

I think your ideas regarding criticisms and opinions are excellent. Madonna's career, like that of all entertainers, was built by opinions and reactions. She could be the greatest entertainer in the world but if nobody responded, where would she be? There are two ways you could do it. One, as you said, with a section at the end. I think this could create a somewhat disjointed effect - I'm not sure. The other would be to weave a consistent thread of critique through the article, with perhaps a section at the end to summarise. It's desirable that we make an effort one way or the other, and it may be that the most suitable approach will be identified as we continue editing. Rossrs 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It will take time, but we will get there. Ramonojo 23:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Madonna has already been crowed the greatest female music icon of the 20 and 21st century, by numerous publications. She's been around for THREE decades and still on top.

…that there are too many cooks in the kitchen, while one cook in particular likes to dominate the edits and act as if the article is his solely (or primarily) to do with what he pleases. — DtownG 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Who? PatrickJ83 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably the user who goes by the name "Hotwiki." His hands seems to constantly stay in the pot around here. - the real avenger 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh shut up noob and for Dtowng you know it's better if you just contribute and not saying things like that and btw this is not kitchen.--2hot4u2handle 22:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit the article. Spent two hours adding/rearranging items to make it look more in order...only to come back to see that Hotwiki had reverted my edits back to HIS version. He feels he owns the page and when someone takes him to task, he cops his little "First of all..." attitude. Nwdavis 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah I don't even know you edited this article--LooseTheHotButtonS 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Once this tour starts this Sunday, will have tons of great live pictures of Madonna. Maddyfan 12:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article should mention, at least, the lawsuit over "Frozen", the fact that she lost, and the consequence that "Frozen" is no longer legally available in Belgium. DS 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• well she was going to counter suit because she wasn't present al the trial (nor anyone from madonna's camp). Ramonojo 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• You can find info about the lawsuit in the songs article: Frozen. We can't put every detail in the main Madonna article. It is already too long. The most I would do is put a line like "which became the subject of a lawsuit" next to where Frozen is mentioned. Preferably as short as possible. Bisco 08:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised this was not listed in her Relationships section.. so I took the libery and included references. Is there any doubt about this? I have seen numerous photos of them together from this era (mid 90s). Hope this is a welcome addition. Madonna & Dennis Rodman - xsxex

I don't think there is doubt about it. But as your source suggests it's a little trivial. It was possibly a short relationship, not too serious or at least with no serious "outcome". Maybe we could concentrate in the Madonna (entertainer) article on the three "important" relationships. And put all other on Madonna trivia? I don't have to remind you that the main article is too long and one of the things-to-do is to stay to relevant, important facts and put all further useful, interesting information into other articles. Bisco 08:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did that name come from (just asking)? --Mhking 21:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I truly don't know who started calling her that, it must have been some important magazine, or news program or something like that to make everybody else jump on that wagon and start calling her the queen of pop. Ramonojo 23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Everywhere she is knownk as queen of pop::: every single newspaper and magazine in teh world has called her the Queen of Pop since the early 80s. Notables are Rolling Stone, NME, Vogue, Face, Times magazine...

that is absolute nonsense. It's the type of wild exaggeration that is rampant in this article. She has not been referred to as that from the beginning of her career. It's far more recent. Rossrs 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The earliest I know of is from 1998. On MTV's "Celebrity Death Match" they had MADONNA Vs. MICHAEL JACKSON; QUEEN OF POP Vs. KING OF POP. The name really didn't start circulating until the "Ray of Light" era when it was obvious this woman was a musical legend who would be around for as long as she wanted. That wasn't until her 8th album was released that she was called the Queen. I don't know why anyone would call Britney Spears or Christina the Queen already as they have not sold even HALF as many records as Madge nor do we ever know how long they will be around. In fact, Madonna's "Confessions on A Dance Floor" sold as many copies as Christina's "Back To Basics", and this is Madonna's 11th album and only Christina's 3rd.

I think Image:Madonnac1.JPG looks awful. Out of the available free choices, I think Image:Madonna Live 8 - 1.jpg is the best. Image:Madonnac1.JPG has her face covered by hair, --Rob 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just updated the image that's been donated. It's from the Confessions Tour. Big, and you can see Madonna perfectly and clearly. Maddyfan 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Image:Forbiddenlovecropped.jpg should be cropped further, to cut out empty background (on the top and left sides)? Also, it may be good to upload it to Commons (where Commons:Madonna (entertainer) is), so all the other language wikis can share it.. --Rob 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHHAH!! "Empty background"!? You mean THE FREAKING CROSS!? Haha, yes... just crop a little "on the top" and "left sides"!! Oh my gawd. Oh my gawd. That's hilarious. Just... hilarious. I'm sorry if this comment is of no use to anyone, but you can't help but snort after reading that. : P 67.85.178.227 10:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be best if we had more information about each photograph, especially a verifiable way to determine that the image has been released under a free, reusable license. If uploading anything to Commons, please upload the full image at the highest available resolution. Jkelly 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I did all that. Maddyfan 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maddyfan, the new image is superb in my opinion. Thank you and well done! Rossrs 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I try. Maddyfan 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro of the article is pure fan gush. Every sentence, except the opening one lists her grandiose accomplishments, instead of providing context for the article as it should. If you ask me, it deserves a POV tag. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not gushing. That is Madonna! Not POV. Open up a book sometime and read what is written for her. If you want to read more about her early life, go into the bio.

Orane is correct. It's not neutral, and rather than suggest Orane should "open a book", you should read some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The other problem with the lead is that it is supposed to be a summary of the article that follows, and currently this is not the case. Rossrs 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How so, sexual and religious imagery are not talked about? Her accomplishments aren't spoken of?

I've tried again to write an intro for this article. Last time I did, it was reverted within half a day. Please look at this before reverting. A lead paragraph serves a specific purpose. It is intended to be a "snap shot" summary of the article that follows. It is not intended to be a list of superlatives. Saying that someone is the best this or the biggest that - does not really inform a reader about what the person is about, and it's highly POV. Achievement say a lot more than superlatives, and WP:LEAD gives a good rundown of what's required if this is ever going to be a featured article. WP:LEAD also supports the notion that for such a long article, a substantial lead paragraph is warranted.

What I've done and what I've tried to address :

1. Tried to summarise her achievements as a recording artist, noting that she has achieved extreme success but that she has not been universally admired. She has had to work for the critical respect she has ultimately won.
2. Her use of religious and sexual context has been contraversial.
3. Her film career has been extensive but has been secondary to her music career. She's been in more films than many "legitimate" actresses. This is noteworthy and should be in the lead but I don't think it's appropriate to attack her. Suffice to say her film career is secondary to her music career.
4. Her "Maverick Records" experience. This is a staggering achievement despite the outcome, and it's been completely avoided in the article. It needs to be discussed in the article, and definately belongs in the lead.
5. Her level of celebrity is exceptional. Should be mentioned. But without making a big song and dance about it.
6. The Guiness Book of Records and Warner Brothers sales figure info adequately demonstrate her unique level of commercial success. This speaks for itself and does not need any emotive and over-the-top adjectives from us. Just the facts.
7. The "Greatest American" info is nonsense. It is barely of significance to be anywhere in the article, but no way should it be in the lead. It's also misleading to the point of being deliberately deceptive. It says she was one of the "top 16" (whoever heard of a "top 16" anything?) "Greatest Women", but the fact is she was one of 16 women nominated in a group of 100 individuals as potentially the "Greatest American". She failed to make the "Top 25" "Greatest Americans" which became the list. And there was no "Greatest Women" list. We seem to have invented that for the article. So, Madonna is nominated as one of the "Greatest Americans" but fails to make the list after the vote. Still, with a bit of a creative twist we reword it and put it into the lead paragraph as if it's some kind of accomplishment. No, it's absolutely not. I've deleted it.

If anyone is unhappy about any of these changes, please discuss it here. In no way do I consider that I've "fixed" the problems with the lead paragraph. It's just a start and a I welcome discussion. Rossrs 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it reads like an encyclopedic entry!!! Very good job, Rossrs, I really loved it. It now fulfils the requirements of WP:LEAD, and sounds like other FAs (Mariah Carey, Celine Dion and Kylie Minogue). The only minor problems I had was a run on, and a few areas of excessive detail (hopefully I corrected those). Again, good work. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Orane, for the support, and also for the edits. I think the way you have changed the sequence of some of my points makes it a lot stronger and it flows better. It's all appreciated ! Rossrs 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I love it too Rossrs, I can't wait for this article to be a GA or FA--LooseTheHotButtonS 17:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you like it :-) Rossrs 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• about the Greatest American thing, she wans't nominated, people actually had to vote for her (people meaning us, TV viewers not critics. So people actually voted to put Madonna among the Top 100 she had only enough votes to make it to #56 or whichever position she reached. Ramonojo 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I looked at the Greatest American article and it mentioned nominations, but the way it was written was misleading, and it's not appropriate in the intro. Later in the article, I guess, if anyone feels it should be included. Rossrs 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the section about her involvement with the Kabbalah Center removed? I agree that it ran too long, but it's an important part of her these days, so there should be something about it here, no?--Downtownstar 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. Earlier today there was a vandal who edited this article 12 times, each time removing swathes of text. In the 12 reverts that followed, the Kabbalah section was somehow missed. That was just an oversight, but thank you for noticing and pointing it out. Rossrs 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that the influences section is missing her latin influences, all from her La Isla Bonita, to Who's That Girl and Evita to the spanish versions of You'll See and What It Feels Like For A Girl and her admiration and inspiration for Frida Kahlo I think shows her latin influences, should that be included? Ramonojo 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Madonna does have a well-known love of Latin-American culture from the music to the men. If you or someone can make a well-written section about that please go for it. --MrBlondNYC 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who put in that pap of a second paragraph? More biased B.S. Remember a few weeks back when the opening salvo was perfect? Go back that that. PatrickJ83 03:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That was me Patrick. You need to be more specific. Why is the second paragraph "pap" and what makes it "biased B.S."? Which particular opening salvo of a few weeks ago did you consider perfect, and why so, because there have been so many variations. It's no help to just make angry, unconstructive comments like this, because we're not mindreaders. Rossrs 11:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Patrick, please stop reverting the lead para. I explained in "Intro" above why I made the edits that I made and 2 people supported it. Please read WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. You could also look at other featured articles, especially recent ones, for musicians (Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Kylie Minogue, The Waterboys, The KLF, Phil Collins, Pink Floyd, Sly & The Family Stone, The Supremes and The Jackson 5 for a few examples, which all have leads of 3 paragraphs or more). If we want this article to become feautured, it will not happen with an insufficient lead - that is a common reason for "oppose" votes. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and the length of the lead needs to be in direct correlation to the length of the article. ie long article, longer lead. With the guts taken out of it, all the lead tells us is that she is a successful, controversial singer who has won lots of awards. That is not sufficient. There is nothing at all subjective about the text you removed and if you think that certain words or phrases are subjective, please explain exactly what it is that you don't like, and why, rather than just deleting the whole thing. Or edit it thoughtfully to improve the wording you disagree with, but not just cut and slash. Please also consider that you seem to be the only one that holds this opinion and to continue trying to force that opinion onto the article, and the rest of us editors, is not constructive - two editors said that they "loved" the intro, but more tellingly, numerous editors have worked on the article since, without feeling the need to change it. I am not merely giving you my opinion here. This is standard Wikipedia policy, along with a general consensus of users regarding style vs your opinion. Rossrs 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but did she not also pursue a relationship with Ingrid Casares? Eddieuny 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Am i wrong or didnt Mado lived around one year in Paris and France ? 81.57.68.117 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that she did work with French disco singer Patrick Hernandez and was a backup singer on his world tour, but am unsure whether or not she lived in France for a year. I don't think she did though. -- Underneath-it-All 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No mention of her in the relationships section either? Madonna's lesbian dalliance in the '90s was all the talk of the tabloids and television. I'm not well-versed in the complete scenario enough to make the changes to the article myself, otherwise I would. Then again, anything I contributed would most likely get reverted by some "Mad" fan who graduated from Gerber to solids when Madonna's career was at its height. FuturePresent 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody else has also noted that Ingrid Casares is not mentioned, and Madonna was also reported to be very close to Rosie O'Donnell for a time. Correctly done, it's valid and important, especially in view of her approach to/depiction of sexuality in general, and specifically to her relationship with the gay community. You make a very good point, but ending it with an unprovoked insult is not an effective way of soliciting support for your viewpoint. Rossrs 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A jest, a mere jest -- and nothing more. I thought the Gerber link would have made that clear. Apologies to any fundamentalist Wikipedians who were offended by the joke.FuturePresent 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The current phrasing RE: Bernhard is unacceptable. At the best the only completley outright statement made about their relationship, from either side, is that they were extremely good friends. Any intimations of a lesbian relationship were just that - intimations. The only person to speak out implicitly about the aftermath of the situation is Bernhard, who has stated fairly clearly in her various one-woman shows that, WHATEVER happened between them, Bernhard felt betrayed by the way it ended. Someone needs to source this statement that they had an actual sexual relationship, or else it needs to be revised. Pacian 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Completely unaccepable. Furthermore, similar wording was used in regards to Ingrid Casares, and also to numerous males. Wikipedia is not a list of people Madonna has allegedly slept with. I've deleted a large amount of text as unsubstantiated, uncited rumours. When you see something like this, written without any source or reference, especially something that could potentially be libellous (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living people) the best course is to get rid of it. Please, just remove it on sight. To quote Jimmy Wales : "It should be removed, aggressively....". Rossrs 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You say "Wikipedia is not a list of people Madonna has allegedly slept with..." SO, PLEASE GO TO SEE Winona Ryder'S WİKİPEDİA PAGE!!!!!! WHY THİS İDAE İS NOT VALİD FOR WİNONA RYDER!!! (unsigned comment by User:88.247.80.138)

What is your point exactly? I'm sorry, but I haven't read each of the more than one million articles on Wikipedia, so somehow I must have missed reading Winona Ryder. Just because the Winona Ryder article is full of gossip and unsubstantiated crap, doesn't mean the Madonna article should be too. The "idea" is valid for Winona Ryder, but I'm not going to edit every article on Wikipedia. I'm sure you could find dozens, maybe hundreds of other examples. So what? We're talking about the Madonna article here. Rossrs 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

These males aren't "allegedly" Madonna's ex-partners. Madonna's past relationships with people like John F. Kennedy Jr., Prince, Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice, David Blaine, Andy Bird etc... are known by the public! They aren't gossips... If you want, you can make a research on the web! (unsigned comment by User:88.247.80.138)

That's not how it works. I don't need to "make a research on the web", and yes it is gossip. What purpose does it serve? It's true. So what? That doesn't mean we need to record it as part of a biographical article. How important is Andy Bird? Quite possibly, I know more about Madonna than you do, but that's not the point. I really don't care whether these people dated Madonna or not, my comments are related to how the information is presented in the article. I've read about these people and I'm not disputing your assertions but you need to consider how Wikipedia operates and work within its guidelines of providing sources. The onus is on you to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and cite sources. Telling me that you can put whatever you want into the article because I "can make a research on the web" is just nonsense. You need to take some time to learn how Wikipedia works, and try to distinguish between the type of writing and information appropriate for a fanzine and the type of writing and information appropriate for an encyclopedia. Rossrs 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was Charles Barkley deleted from her relationship page? In Madonna's infamous appearance on Late Night in 1994 that's all Letterman wanted to talk about the entire first half of the show. Plus, a citation was used and I see no reason why an unknown like Andy Bird or a has-been like Vanilla Ice should be listed and a legend like Barkley be omitted.--216.63.107.164 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Madonna's Bird relationship not only resulted in the song Beautiful Stranger, it was made into a movie. Madonna was obsessed with him.

Strong "British" flavor or strong "rave" flavor? What exactly is British flavor?

The article says this:

"surrounded by topless dancers including Luca Tomassini and Carrie Ann Inaba."

Since Luca Tomassini is a man, his going topless doesn't seem very "explicit".

Sure -- it was just a phase she was going through!

But it was huge, blatant, and totally promoted by her.

Of course I don't have the dates clear like anyone else -- but in the early 90's, she put on a big show of her extremely close friendship with lesbian Sandra Bernhard(t), and then there big "breakup", and then turning to Ingrid Casares.

It was totally just accepted by everyone in the universe that Madonna had absolutely turned lesbian or at least bisexual. And she was working it.

She appeared on David Letterman with Sandra and they giggled about going to the lesbian club the Cubby Hole. Sandra shouts "Cubby!" -- Madonna shouts "Hole!". She appeared on David Letterman wearing manly clothes and smoking a cigar.

It was all part of the kinky Erotica image... or was it reality... or was it... Madonna ?!

I've popped in some mention of this in the "Relationships" section, but it deserves an entire section in the course her artistic/personality (they can't be separated) development -- with photos of her all dyked up -- which I assert should certainly be titled The Whole Gigantic World Famous Lesbian Phase!

According to the "Relationships and family" section, Madonna "... refers to herself simply as "Mrs. Ritchie" on her personal letterhead". If she has apparently taken on her husband's surname in her personal life, should she not be referred to as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone Ritchie in the opening paragraph?

Also, does she even use her confirmation name, Veronica, legally, personally, or in any other way other than within the Roman Catholic Church. If she only used it within the Church, it's unlikely that she still uses it, as she's now studying Kabbalah. Charity 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we also address the fact that she is nor was not 'christened' with the name Veronica. Veronica is her Confirmation name, taken by her own chosing normaly in early teens when undergoing a catholic confirmation.

NOTE: the report of her adopting a 1-year old African boy in Malawi is currently being disputed by her publicist. Let's tag that as a 'report of' but nothing more until the conflicting rumours are settled down and we know the facts. Source: http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1542537,00.html 71.56.222.19 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kimonthejourney71.56.222.19 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Madonna, we love you!! 48 and still kicking, keep it up, girrrlll, you're hawt! Shandris^{the azylean} 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this article from editing, pending the resolultion of its current revert warring. Stewiegfan, please explain these reverts: [6], [7], and how the first of those actually removed anything remotely spam-like from the article. - Mark 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The information about a hernia, an Ellen Degeneres appearance etc, is meaningless. They also removed important information including the upcoming live special of the Confessions tour. The section was bombarded with useless information, errors, and is just all over the place. The only part of interest, was the horse riding accident, which I added back in. The rest is not relevant. Before, it was concise and to the point. Stewiegfan 08:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would another hospitalization not be relevant? Why would the Grammy performance for her single "Music" that is listed earlier be relevant, but the performance for "Hung Up" at a later Grammy show be irrelevant? The performance at the Grammies, then announcement of the tour on Ellen shaped her Confessions tour. Why would a rework of the Confessions tour article, that sounds more proper be reverted back to old wording? I simply don't understand what is irrelevant. Who are you to say what is irrelevant? There are several prior items like this that would be irrelevant. I just don't see what's irrelevant. Sorry I forgot to add the NBC concert back in - but, why would THAT be relevant, but the Grammy performance be irrelevant? Also, you added back in that she won an Academy Award for Evita, that is an error that I corrected, and you added it back in. Furthermore, what were the errors? I cited different sources to verify facts stated, why don't you check the citations? What is an error that's not cited, because I will cite it for you then.

How the hell can you insist on inventing that Madonna won an Academy Award for best actress in Evita?! It's a blatant lie and impossibly easy to disprove. Paul75 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The hernia was something Madonna had for over ten years. It was a one day procedure, nothing big. The opening of the Grammys is not newsworthy to make paragraphs on. We had this before and it was removed. Ellen is not newsworthy. I didn't add anything back in, it was a revert, anything that was there before, came back. There are further errors included in the documentary section. We have an entire section on the Confessions Tour, and a Controversy section, that's where that information, at least for now, belongs. The stuff added is cluttered, and a mess. We are suppose to have a concise write up. Not every little detail is needed.

This doesn't even make sense:

"Following this, the camera switched to another stage where Madonna and her dancers performed "Hung Up," the second half of the opening act, live. Madonna appeared on the "Ellen Degeneres Show" Grammy post show (filmed at the Grammy awards that night) the next day, where she announced she would be going on tour that coming Summer. Furhter details were not disclosed for several months to follow."

Grammar is awful, and it's beyond irrelevant. Summer is capitalized, further is misspelled.

This does not belong:

"On May 21, 2006, Madonna embarked on her sixth world tour (seventh tour total,) the Confessions Tour. The tour would begin in the United States & Canada, then moved to Europe, and finally, for the first time in thirteen years, Japan. She will perform her first-ever concert in Moscow, Russia on September 11, 2006, as part of the tour. Tickets for her tour dates sold out within minutes at many venues, prompting several additional dates to be added. Controversy was generated worldwide from her performance of "Live To Tell," where she sings while hanging from a mirrored cross while wearing a crown of thorns. She further fueled the controversy by inviting the Pope to her Rome concert."

This is completely useless information which already has pages dedicated to it. The tour is not yet over. It also contains a copy and paste from the Confessions Tour page. We already had a brief mention of the tour here. This is just what is already on the page dedicated to it.

Again, the only info of use is the horse riding incident. I'm here to tell you, none of this will be staying. It IS irrelevant.

Madonna did not get a hernia from her Hung Up performance. She had it from pregnancy.

The hernia was from her performance of Hung Up at the 06 Grammy awards. She was not pregnant at the time. Her son was born in 2000, its 6 years past now, why would she get the hernia now. I also cited my sources, and if you need be, I will cite 20 sources for it, there are several sources, Google it and see. Furthermore, if you don't like the grammar you are supposed to correct it - you just don't go around removing whole sections of articles with mistakes, you correct them. I have corrected several of them! Wikipedia even says you are free to edit anything you want mercilessly! I copied and pasted NOTHING from the confessions tour page, though I did use the page as a factual source. Why don't we just put on there Confessions Tour and thats it? Like I said before - why was the Grammy performance of Music OK to add, but the performance of Hung Up not? Explain it all then. I dont know who you think you are to just remove anything from the article, but I dont really give a crap anymore. Own your stupid article, put in whatever you want! You are arrogant and don't want ANYONE editing ANYTHING or adding ANYTHING to your article!!! Why would you erase the horseriding accident in the first place, then add it in like you were the one that did it? Why did you put back in that she won an Academy Award for Evita also? I guess you just erase any article with mistakes, lets just delete the whole article then, I dont care, do whatever you want! And.... what was spam in the first place, you added in that I added all sorts of spam, well, i URGE you, tell me WHAT EXACTLY ON THERE was spam!!?? And I dont care what stays in the article for your information. I am just tired of people thinking that they own the article and just erase entire sections. I did this once and got told it was vandalism and I was to reword it not erase it, so I did. You did'nt fix anything. And dont go try correcting my grammar or spelling in this entry on here, because I DONT CARE ANYMORE!

Paul75, I never said she won an Academy Award, I know for a fact she wasn't even nominated for one. I corrected that info, but Stewiegfan added it back in.

Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that you did, the comment was made for Stewiegfan, sorry. Paul75 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the hernia was from HER PREVIOUS PREGNANCIES. Madonna had it for over 10 years. She talked about it live in the UK when she was at the Brit awards. Pregnancies weaken the stomach lining. Madonna had it for years. She finally decided to take care of it.

The Music section is talking more about her return to prominance, it was during the year she was NOMINATED FOR HER AlBUM. It was also the first perfomance she had given at the Grammys in years let alone open them. Madonna has giving tons of performances. It's not mandatory to name each one. Madonna gave that same performance minus the Gorillaz 100 times. Lastly, I didn't add back in the Acadamy Award info. That was already on the revert. Stewiegfan 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, if that is fact about the hernia, why don't you cite your source, I cited mine. Furthermore, the reason I added the Gorillaz performance was because it was the start of the formation of her next tour, the Confessions tour. I wouldn't list 100's of performances, that would just be stupid! Why did you take away the rewrite of the Confessions paragraph also? If anything is misspelled or incorrect grammar, you don't just remove it, you correct it. Ejfetters 18 August 2006

Actually that performance originated at the Brit Awards the year prior. The hernia discussion came up when Madonna was interviewed along with the Pet Shop Boys, who at the time had just added vocals to the Sorry remix, backstage at the 2006 Brit Awards. A lot of press linked Madonna exercising to the reason she had a hernia which was not the case. Madonna explained that she had the hernia for ten years and decided to finally take care of it. The Coachella performances were actually in preparation for the the tour, trying out the material in front of a live audience. You'll also note that Madonna's Live8 performance is also not talked about, which is where we first got official word of the title of Madonna's album from Madonna herself. Not everything is worth paragraphs. Back before the summer, we had much of what was written in the section now, only to have it removed a dozen times. Users felt it wasn't necessary.

If you really need to layout the Grammy performance, it would be a smart idea to put it in the Hung Up page, where you can give a detailed account of the performance, you can even put up screencaps if you like. It doesn't even fully explain, but again, the performance and Ellen appearance are really not necessary.

What rewrite of the Confessions section are you referring too? Irrelevant information will be removed. It's not worth correcting, when it shouldn't be there to begin with. It's just mountains and mountains of useless information, much copied from other pages, and thrown into the main page yet again. Again, we have an entire Confessions tour page. Stewiegfan 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What did I copy? I dont care anymore, whatever.

The paragraph states what is already talked in detail on the tour's main page. It's the same exact thing. Something of mention would be, Madonna embarked on a world tour in support of the album, starting May 2006, hitting the US, most of Europe, and parts of Asia. The tour went onto become the highest grossing tour for a female performer.... if people want full blown details, sold out tickets, etc., it's on the tour's page.

I have unprotected this article, due to the discussion that has gone on here. Hopefully, everyone can work together on this article instead of simply reverting one another backwards and forwards. If you feel compelled to remove large chunks of text, please discuss such a removal here on the talk page, providing your reasons and allowing other editors to provide their opinions of what should happen. If you see some spelling or grammatical errors, please correct them yourself, instead of removing the text altogether. If the revert warring picks back up, I will simply re-protect the article. - Mark 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm going to clean up the Confessions tour, part, main points:

-Start/End of tour -Places it stopped at -Top grossing -Controversy -TV airing

We'll see how this goes, lol. Stewiegfan 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not my addition, but Stewiegfan just again erased a whole section and didnt give any reason in the comment or discussion page. I thought we're gonna explain ourselves now!? What gives!?

This is an encyclopedia entry. It is not a fan site. It is not the definitive guidebook to Madonna. The aim of an encyclopedia is to provide factual information on a subject that will give someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject a basic working knowledge of the said subject. They do NOT need to know when Madonna announced one of her tours, why a performance at the Grammys formed the basis of a future performance, the exploration in depth of her relationship with Sandra Bernhard or the day she broke her nail. A FACTUAL, NPOV CONDENSED REPORT OF HER LIFE AND CAREER IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED. Stop bickering about the fact that someone removed your edit after "all the time you spent on it" - get over it. If you aren't prepared for someone to edit your precious work, don't contribute to Wikipedia. That is one of the main rules of Wikipedia. I suggest that if anyone wants to write an indepth, never ending report of Madonna they establish their own website - Yahoo does it for free. What this article needs it for an experienced writer to produce the definitive article and then have it protected forever....if only. This page is an embarrassment to Madonna, an embarassment to Wikipedia and most importantly an embarrassment to the fans. Grow up the lot of you. Personal abuse can be directed at the bottom of the entry, I know it is going to come. Paul75 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• agrees* --Sergio Á.(nodoubt9203) ^{|talk to me|} 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire page should be deleted and redone. Then it should be protected forever from the fans. I mean, it's an absolute mess, and nobody here even knows what they're doing when they edit. They just put useless crap into it.

72.226.87.148 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment on the above. Why don't we make a separate page for her documentaries, or move them to the filmography page and go more in depth there? I just think the article size it too long and don't want to remove peoples additions, but want to find another solution. I prefer the idea moving them to the filmography page, any opinions?

Why are all the links, pictures and audio sample disabled? This article looks like a mess...

Who the heck keeps re-writing (and keeping) that second paragraph of the intro? The latest which one (which had to go) looks like it was written by a grade-schooler. There only needs to be TWO paragraphs TOPS in the intro:

"Madonna Louise Ciccone (born August 16, 1958), better known worldwide by only her first name Madonna, is an American pop singer, record and film producer, dancer, actor, and children's author. Sometimes referred to as the "Queen of Pop", she is noted for her innovative music videos, elaborately mounted stage performances, and use of political, sexual, and religious themes and imagery in her work.

In 2000, The Guinness Book of Records credited Madonna as the most successful female recording artist of all time, with estimated worldwide sales of 120 million albums.[1] Her record label, Warner Bros. Records, reported in 2005 that she had achieved international sales in excess of 200 million albums."

That's enough!! Knock it off with the lame "her style matured....she won grammies....she toured" crap. Someone who doesn't know much about Madonna doesn't need to know this superflous junk, they want to know the facts. And give it a rest with the "commonly referred to as Queen of Pop" stuff as well, if you can't leave it simple don't put it in at all!!! And note how I moved it to the middle of the first paragraph. PatrickJ83 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

in the late 70/early 80s Madonna went on tour as a "disco tart" in Europe peforming in night clubs - I believe she did some work with Giorgio Moroder - this is not mentioned at all in her bio. I am not sure of the details but I though Id put it out there....

Mrlopez2681 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth isn't the article called Madonna Ciccone? Thats her name. Beyonce's is called Beyonce Knowles even though she releases records under her first name only

Madonna's professional name has always been Madonna; Beyonce's hasn't. PatrickJ83 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead of this article describes Madonna as a "children's author," but for the life of me I can't find any book mentioned other than the obvious one, which is about as far from a kids' book as you can get. I don't know much about her, so either that description is completely incongruous, or information needs to be added. Probably her role as a non-children's author ought to be mentioned up there, too. --Masamage 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found proof that she has written children's books; someone involved with this article needs to do an Amazon search and add the appropriate info. --Masamage 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've added a Books section that mentions Sex and lists three of her children's books. The subject is more fully covered on the Madonna bibliography page, which is referenced at the bottom of this article, so I think that's enough for the time being. --Little Miss Might Be Wrong 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course she's a children's author, everybody knows. She's also got a record as a children's author, the quickest consecutive #1 best sellers in the world ever (the English Roses and its follow up went to #1 in a matter of months from each other) as well as in the uS. Maybe one should mention that money from those books went all to charity, so, she has not made a penny out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I am sorry if any fans of Madonna are reading this. I have to comment on the text given by Wikepedia. For starters,the phrase used,"Queen Of Pop" is not true! How could a voice like hers be "The Queen Of Pop"??? If anybody who has read this knows the answer to this question, please write back to wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.133.21 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end.

First of all, the article does not say that Madonna is the Queen of Pop--it says that people call her that, which they do. It's a common enough nickname for her that it would be misleading not to mention it.

Secondly, "fans of Madonna" and "Wikipedia" aren't really separate groups. This article was written by fans (and non-fans) of Madonna, the very same people who are reading your comment here; anybody can edit any article, including you. It's a work-in-progress and should be treated as such, but any time you see room for improvement, you can join in and help. That's part of the fun.--Masamage 06:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A voice like that? Good god, this is 2006 and we're still getting shit about her singing ability. PatrickJ83 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

two points. 1- Madonna is called the Queen of Pop by the media just do a google search, and you'll find that 99.99% of the times she is called so [8]

2- Madonna's voive is not what has made her the Queen of Pop. It's her 23 year reign as the greatest chart-topper in the world and hae humonguous sales that set her above any other female artist around (200/210m albums and more than 100m singles!) and the fact that she's been the most influential female pop/rock artist ever. However, contrary to popular belief, Madonna has a well above average voice. 2 and a half octaves for sure, though she has reached notes that are clearly more than 3 octaves apart (take the Ray of Light LIVE at Live 8 for example, the highest pitch on that stage, and Mariah Carey swas on the same stage). To give an example, Celine Dion has 2 octaves and 3 notes, Whitney just passed the 3rd octave, though both normally use a much higher volume when singing. Aretha spanned more than 4, whatever people say (I've read silly data like 3 octaves)she's shown it live, even recently (the Dibas concert- she purposely touched basically every single note for 4+ octaves, and 'Close to You' spand almost 5 octaves) Anyone who's seen Madonna live can ascertain that she has a good voice. The fact that she does not belt and yell all the time is another thing. For a start, this has allowed her to keep, actually increase her voice with the years, then, there is not just one way of singing, gentler voices are not necessarily worse than more powerful voices, finally, Madonna can sing (and compose!) a huge range of songs, from ballads to dance siongs, to blues and rock (pretty heavy at times). This makes her a pretty unique singer. Take 'Sooner or Later' live at the Oscars and 'American Life' live in the Re-Invention tour, you'd hardly think one could sing such different songs. On top of all this, I don't know anyone who can sing and dance (and stretch her body as she does) so well at the same time...

A truly bad article which easily breaches NPOV, it just kisses her backside like there's no tomorrow. Really unbalanced. LuciferMorgan 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There will be six singles from the album Confessions on a dabcefloor.The fifht single will be Push and the six How High(Will only come out if Push gets high in the charts).This two songs were taken from the Confessions Tour setlist because MAdonna plans to release them as singles.Madonna will perform Push on the MTV EMA 2006 with dancers wearing Blue clothes. There will be a new Album soon with rock/Dance and balade songs. Lenny Kravitz and Stuart Price will work on some songs with her. There will be also a new Tour with songs that the Fans will be able to choose(no remixes,only original versions of the songs...) These informations are from Warner Bros.

LOL PatrickJ83 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Madonna's attracted a number of tag names during her career, "Boy Toy", "The Material Girl", "The Maternal Girl", "Madge" and "The Queen of Pop", among others, but she hasn't been commonly known by any of them. If "commonly" was accurate I would expect to see her referred as such in almost every artice I read about her, because "commonly" implies that this is what she is usually known as. This is not the case. I know it's only one word but it subtly changes the meaning of the sentence. She's often called "Queen of Pop". If it's so important that it has to be mentioned in the lead paragraph, can we at least ensure that we are not overstating the facts, and not place too much importance on a fairly meaningless phrase, one of many invented by the media. Rossrs 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference between a recording artist and a singer? If not, the last paragraph in the introduction about Madonna being crowned the most successful female recording artist and most successful female singer by the Guiness Book of Records in 2000 and 2007, respectively, seems slightly redundant to me. Might I suggest removing the old 2000 reference and keeping the most recent (2007) record? Charity 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One is most successful. The other is highest earning.

Not all recording artists are singers, some are musicians but do not sing. Madonna is both, and is far ahead of any runner up either amongst female singers and female musicians. In a way, yes, it's redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Is the phrase 'fuck up of a father' who is responsible for Madonna's strength of personality a quote?? Because if so, it should appear as one, with adequate 'Madonna once said's etc . If not, obviously needs to be removed.203.87.126.56 08:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just vandalism. I removed it. -Patstuart 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is becoming ridiculous. It's full of hearsay: we have people adding that she's had an affair with people Oliver Newton (who the heck is that?), Michael Jackson and Prince (is that feasible?). I'm close to getting rid of any names that aren't specifically sourced; the temptation is far too great to just add names and conjecture to this section. -Patstuart 17:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm talking about the last section of the paragraph: "According to various sources, Madonna also had affairs with..." -Patstuart 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the whole paragraph as per WP:BLP, all the sources were rumour web sites that didn't cite their own sources as far as I could see, making verifiability difficult.-213.219.184.15 04:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about mentioning Madonna and the right to roam? There was a lot of press coverage about this in the UK: mainly as a 'hook' to get people into the more general story, but still. Morwen - Talk 10:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the adoption section there is this reference:

Other adoption rights groups have noted that Madonna did not cut in line to adopt Banda, pointing out that only three visas were issued in 2005 for adopted children to leave Malawi.

What does this mean that she cut in line? Or that she did not cut in line? I'm mystified.

Thanks,

Andrew Parodi 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it is that you have the critics, who are attacking Madonna's adoption because it comes under questionable circumstances. One of the criticisms of Madonna's adoption is that she appears to have gotten favorable treatment due to her fame and wealth. Many people have been waiting for months or years to adopt, and seemingly overnight Madonna has an adoption. The "other adotpion rights groups," however, point out that she did not cut in line because Malawi is not a country that routinely offers international adoption. In other words, if I was the next person on the list to adopt an African child, Madonna didn't get the child that should have come to me because Malawi would never send a child to me. Per the US State Department, Malawi law says that international adoptions from Malawi are illegal unless you reside in Malawi. Balloonman 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the Guinness Book of Records enters Madonna as the best paid female musician ever with £26m this year, but in 2005 she declared £29m and in 2002 £33m, that's official data in given by the UK Inland Revenue. I don't have data in the US, but I think she declared $50m in 1986, which should be just above £26m... They must have skipped somedata, or maybe there's a problem with the currency they use and the exchange rate?

Anyway, she should beat her own record next year 9now it's tours that make money, and with the Confessions Tour to go into her P40....)

Someone has made changes to the article concerning Madonna's family. See this revision. There's no sourcing to show the new change. However, I found another article which says she's the oldest of eight. Anyone have any sources to corroborate the changes? --Wolf530 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no Madonna fan, but anyone would agree she is controversial. There are over 50 separate topics on this talk page.

I agree with the first post titled "Criticism", and several others. I think what one wants, in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, is a balanced article. Certainly it's fine to say "Madonna has legions of slavish fans", but to balance the article, you also want to say "she's frequently the target of criticism". Certainly she is more revered by some, and criticized by others, than many pop singers or celebrities.

Also, it seems excessive to give information on her "confirmation name". Either add "Veronica" or don't. No reputable dictionary would waste space explaining that someone sometimes uses their confirmation name, and sometimes doesn't. rich 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The David Banda adoption is controversial. I have no problem with edits to the section, but I think it does a disservice to the page to ignore the controversy by deleting it. Also, if you are going to change a quote, you need to make sure the quote is corrected correctly. Changing what was actually said is never appropriate.Balloonman 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article an endless mess....with superflous junk about her 'influences'....can we just get the straight facts?

Also, instead of so much shallow crap, it would be nice to have an article about the criticism that has been leveled against Madonna for the past 23 years and how she's reacted to it.

Also I would like to see a mention about US radio no longer playing her music. PatrickJ83 22:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it; just explain why in the edit summary, so no one thinks your deletions are vandalism. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done so, with explanations, and a day later some nitwit reverses it. PatrickJ83 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Did he provide a reason why? Ask him to take it to the talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also why does she try and speak with an English accent? Is she an Anglophile

The proof can be found here where [9] NBC axes Madonna's crucifixion. What the network will do is that they will censor out Madonna's scenes when she is on the crucifix and the censorship will end when Madonna gets off of it.

12 November 2006 0:50 GMT

I don't know how to suggest an RN but don't you think this article should be titled Madonna Ciccone, since it is her name? I suggested the same thing for Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ and that made sense. Before it was titled: Ben Hur (novel). It might as well work for Madonna Ciccone

Madonna has never really used Ciccone professionally, though, except when she filmed A Certain Sacrifice very early in her career. Plus, she's taken Ritchie as her surname, and she previously took Penn as her last name during her marriage to Sean Penn, so I think that titling this article "Madonna Ciccone" would probably be inappropriate. Charity 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If she's using "Ritchie" as her surname, shouldn't the article start with "Madonna Louise Ritchie" instead of Ciccone? Jleonau 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is shit. Why no one has mentioned that Madonna's career has outlasted everyone's (Michael Jackson, Prince, Whitney Houston, Britney Spears, Christina, etc..) is because of controversy and her image, not just her cute pop songs. Her career was built on controversy, and it's why every time she releases an album even today it goes straight to #1.

Not to mention that picture is poor quality and pure shit.

I put a pic I took of Madge from the "Confessions" tour. It looks really good.

Does anyone think that a link to the site www.absolutemadonna.com would be appropriate for the external links section? I think the site is pretty good and adds info not able to be discuseed in the article as is talked about atWP:EL.BHFeller 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I just noticed it already is listed in the references section.BHFeller 07:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the article fully, but the intro really disturbs me. Is this what passes for an introduction nowadays? An exhaustive rundown of the artist's success? An into is supposed to give an overview of the artist's career (see Phil Collins, Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion, and Mariah Carey). Also, the world music awards is nothing special, so please don't blow it out of proportion. She received it for being the best-selling pop artist of the year. Nothing more! MJ and Mariah Carey were named best-selling of the millennium (and they have the most awards for any artists)— those are notable WMA records.

Also, Madonna has not sold that many records; please source. And we are not in any position to make any conclusions about whether her total sales places her in the top 5 in the world. I implore the fans. Please read the policies about the tone and nature of articles. See Manual of Style and NPOV. Thank you. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the World's music award isn't that big of a deal, but please don't imply Mariah Carey, who isn't even close to being as international as Madonna, is more successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.13 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I implied nothing of the sort. Why would I? Doesn't Madonna hold the Guinness record? Anyway, my point is that the article is in an extremely poor condition, and actions need to be taken. This was once a featured article (one of the best of its kind on Wikipedia), and fans of Madonna, in their effort to tout thier queen, have virtually obliterated any sense of balance and coherecy. To quote an editor above, the article "kisses Madonna's ass like there is no tomorrow"! Orane (talk • cont.) 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Madonna is the most iconic female superstar all around the world, THİS İS NOT THE CASE OF MARİAH CAREY AT ALL!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.80.138 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I implied! Would you guys please stop dodging the issue? That's it. As soon as I get some free time, I'm going to monitor this article. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does this always degenerate so quickly into a competition between Madonna fans and Mariah Carey fans, or Madonna fans and Kylie Minogue fans or Madonna fans and anyone else? Orane was not comparing the performers, he was comparing their Wikipedia articles, and I agree with him. This article is well below the standard of many other articles, and the entire "Mariah is better", "Mariah is not better", "Madonna is a goddess" nonsense is getting tiresome and does nothing but distract people from the problem, which is the content of this article. It's not about paying tribute to your favourite artist. Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion among others, were once as bad as this article and were dominated by fans who kissed their asses like there was no tomorrow too, but they are all now featured articles, proving that excellent articles can be written about individual performers, whether you love them or hate them. Why is it so difficult to do the same here? Rossrs 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys is Madonna bi-sexual she never admitted it sure I saw the SEX with girls and boys mock fucking her but is she really bi!?

Yes. PatrickJ83 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Madonna has never denied being bisexual either, and has had at least 6 female lovers that we know of, so... Guess, yes, Madonna is bi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

From this page: "Having sold just 4 million copies, American Life is the lowest selling album of her career." From American_Life "American Life posted the lowest sales of any Madonna album to date both in the US and worldwide - reaching 666,000 copies sold as of July 2006 in the U.S". Did the other 3,334,00 copies sell in the rest of the world? Or is this a mistake? JayKeaton 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's just the tendency of Madonna's fans to inflate her sales. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which one is correct then? JayKeaton 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much more than 2.5-3m has been sold internationally. PatrickJ83 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe there has ever been an official statement about the record sales of "American Life" worldwide. It IS safe to say that "American Life" sold 666,000 copies in the U.S. as we have a source to confirm as we also know that "Confessions On A Dance Floor" has sold over 1,500,000 copies in the U.S. and 8 million worldwide. The sales MAY be higher, but we DO NOT have a source to confirm this.

- C.G.

• In France she did sell 700,000 copies of American Life (and that is SOLD) because shipped is more but I don't have the exact figure for the shipped copies in France Ramonojo 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

American Life sales figures are uncertain, it is almost (!!!) double platinum in Europe and it's single platinum in the US, it has not done wonderfully anywhere, and with her EU sales usually matching the rest of the world without the US, it might just be about 5m (1+2+2) or more likely less, as in the EU, France boosted its sales (it was huge there). So, 4.5/5m is an estimate, but nothing is sure. COAD has so far shipped 1.8 in the US, almost if not more than 5m in the EU (it's 4 plat, but sales alone push it to around 5, EU certifications take months and is expected to go 5plat with the next batch of certifications in January) in teh rest of the world it had shipped for sure 2.3 million in Dec 1005 -IFPI-, and has since been recertified in a lot of countries (only adding CA+Oz+Jap one gets past 500k), so it is very safe to say that it's about at least 3 million there (likely more, as it wa a huge hit all over the world apart from the US). The figure is uncertain, as always, but it seems to point to a minimum of 9m so far. Going the other way round shows the same, the iFPI declared 6.3m for COAD at the end of 2005, since it's added 800K in the US, 500K in Jap+Ca=Oz, and at least a1/6m (more likely 2-as adding individiual countries plats gives us in excess of 2m, but as I said, EU plats are slow )in the EU- that again 9m+, maybe going towards 10. For sure is also that WB paid tax on 8.4m copies in April, so did Madonna on copyrights for 8.4m, that was 7 months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

This page is getting extremely long. Might I suggest archiving the discussion page a 3rd time? 70+ posts is a bit much to wade through. I've also added the too long tag ... as a suggestion, perhaps best fit to split, merge, and remove non-critical information?Trodaikid1983 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone else doesn't think the article is too long. I can tell you though that generally, people don't like to wade through thousands of words to find a fact about Madonna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trodaikid1983 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Can someone write an itro for the Discography section? A brief overview of some of her albums, sales, etc.?

I just want to add an update concerning her album sales.

Since I added the protection, in the first place, I've gone one step ahead and unprotected the page. Hopefully the disruption is long past, and you should be able to edit the page as you like. Cheers! Luna Santin 03:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated the Criticism by putting {{Fact}} tags. I also added criticism from animal rights groups.

I changed "She also urged fans to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and this proves what kind of whack job she truly is" to "She urged fans to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11" How has promoting watching a fact based movie show her to be a whack job, she is just trying to educate some of the undereducated... ChristopherMannMcKay 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)