Talk:Madonna/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Author!!!!!

Who took out the "author" reference in the beginning paragraph?! PLEASE PUT IT BACK!!! I'm so sick and tired of this vandalism. Some people with real feeling of hate toward the singer do everything in their power to ridicule and destroy this article. PLEASE FIX IT! THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.163.207 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Get Your Act Together, People

Anyone with half a brain can see that the claim of..what? 180 million record sales is NOT true. In fact, your own website contradicts itself. Go to the "List of best-selling music artist" page and you will see not ONE, but TWO citations (one of them from Rolling Stone Magazine) saying she has sold 175 million albums and 75 million singles. 175 + 75 = 250. Okay? Thanks. 76.112.102.98 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're referring to album sales. 68.82.82.248 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources say she sold 250 million albums. Read the heading!!also please mention that she is a multiple grammy and golden globe award winner. The song "you must love me" recorded by madonna earned an oscar for the film

I agree..Mariah Carey in fact not the biggest selling female. Her sales cannot be confirmed officially because RIAA is a US-based company not worldwide! Her sales figures is considered CLAIMs not FACTs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen Of Pop

Madonna's being titled in almost every article as the 'Queen of Pop'; it's almost as it's her second name. That title should be out there in the beginning of the Wiki page, and not just mentioned at the 'Criticism' section as "... while some proclaimed her as the queen of pop..." That's just not right and doesn't do justice with her. The "Queen of Pop" title is an integral part of the reference and the description of Madonna in the media. That's just a fact – just google her and you'll see that in more that 95% of the articles she's being called just that. In fact that title is almost like her second name in the media. That should be fixed in the Madonna page.

i must agree infact it seems odd that it isnt in the lead. i woundn`t concider it to be fan wording to put it there, the only people who would question it would be those who hate her inwhich case have bias themselves surely. Realist2 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Realist2. So can you do something to change it?

added to the introduction today. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not there today. Someone should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.122.74 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I added it now. STOP REMOVING IT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.247.14 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Madonna is commonly being referred to as the "queen of pop" in the media." DO NOT REMOVE THIS SENTENCE

Madonna is the Queen of Pop and everybody know about that in this whole world, cause that nobody try to delete my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Cassano (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...somtimes being referred to as the "queen of pop"..." Doesn't sound good - It should be: "commonly being referred to..."!! Can someone fix it??!! Plus remove the "Material Girl" reference!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.163.207 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Queen of Pop for Madonna because she has redefined a pop culture through her sexuality, fashion, music, image and persona. She beyond the word entertainer because she managed to stay on top for 20 years. David Letterman in the Late Night Show even mentioned it a few times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT'S GOING ON?! The "Queen of Pop" reference is out again!! PLEASE PUT IT BACK THERE! "Madonna is commonly being referred to as the "queen of pop" in the media." THIS SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.174.193 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE IFPI

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

I agree with you..Ifpi.com, Ifop, Guiness World Book and Billboard mentioned MADONNA is the biggest selling female artist few times!

Here is the list of the biggest selling artist ever: 01. The Beatles : 40 albums - 400 000 000 albums sold (UK 1962-1970) 02. Michael Jackson : 14 albums - 350 000 000 albums sold (USA 1979-) 03. Elvis Presley : 150 albums - 300 000 000 albums sold (US 1956-1977) 04. Madonna : 16 albums - 275 000 000 albums sold (US 1984-) 05. Nana Mouskouri : 450 albums - 250 000 000 albums sold (Greece 1959-) 06. Cliff Richard : 60 albums - 250 000 000 albums sold (UK 1959-1999) 07.The Rolling Stones : 54 albums -~250 000 000 albums sold (UK 1964-) 08. Mariah Carey : 14 albums - 230 000 000 albums sold (US 1990-) 09. Elton John : 43 albums -~220 000 000 albums sold (UK 1972-) 10.Celine Dion : 21 albums - 220 000 000 albums sold (Canada 1990-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectiveness

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

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

Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

True, most articles don't even have a criticism section, and most of Miss Carey's sources come from ezines and forum posts, which are hardly reliable and objective....

Madonna has influnced many pop stars over her 25 year career and yet this is not mentioned. She is also one of the most sucessful and famous women on all time, and yet this is not mentioned. She is also the most successful female tourng act of all time and yet this is not mentioned. Madonna needs a pop culture section, and a list of all the singers she's influnced, if it wasnt for her non of them would exist. She is also the most powerful women in music history and is also in the UK hall of fame along with elvis.

Diet and exercise section

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

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

Madonna's entertainer to artiste

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section

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

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

- Quote: "Despite her alleged rebellion, Madonna had both of her biological children baptized in a Roman Catholic Church."

- This is untrue. Rocco was baptised at Dornoch Cathedral which is Scottish Presbyterian. See http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/dornoch/cathedral/index.html , http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Church_of_Scotland 90.196.224.89 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Objectiveness

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

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

Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Israell 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Israell 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Israell 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna (performer) — Concerns have been raised at the talk page about the connotations of "entertainer". Other suggestions have included Madonna and moving the disambiguation page, Madonna (artiste), and Madonna (singer/actress). ShadowHalo 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose There is nothing wrong with the current name, she IS an entertainer after all (an entertainer can be a singer, actor, dancer, etc. anyone that ENTERTAINS). TJ Spyke 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Madonna has been called a lot worse than "entertainer," if you want to interpret the title as an insult. There are also snide insinuations that could be made about "performer," and I don't see how "entertainer" makes her sound like a magician or circus clown, but calling her a "performer" doesn't make her sound like a circus "performer" or a magician who "performs" tricks. (I certainly would not go along with "artiste," and as for "singer/actress" or anything else with the word "actress" in it... --Groggy Dice T | C 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose; the status quo is fine. --Guinnog 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; per T --Mhking 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; She entertains, whether it be on stage, screen or in a book. Therefor entertainer is the best word to use. fritte 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, time-wasting quibbling about a quite reasonable disambiguation. Gene Nygaard 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's really nothing wrong with "entertainer". PC78 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see nothing wrong with the title - performer could be misconstrued just as easily, and this one works better. -146.186.210.78 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really see any difference between the terms "entertainer" and "performer". Personally, I'd rather move this page to Madonna - that page currently redirects to Madonna (disambiguation) -- Charity 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - She's an entertainer. She entertains. There is nothing wrong with this title. PatrickJ83 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lyrics

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

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

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

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

Some critics do see Madonna as a talented songwriter.

Israell 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Way too long!

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

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

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

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

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

Copy that - while we're at it, can we remove that thing about "adopted name Esther"? 99% of the population doesn't know that.rich 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A new picture....

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

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/070618_Issue/070608_BZ01_vl.widec.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.197.135 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

"Queen of Pop"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^that was the most incoherent bunch of babble I have ever tried to read. Dude you lack clarity, validity, and clearly taste. Madonna is the undisputed Queen of Pop. She is both critically and commercially acclaimed as an artist (more so then any of those people you mention.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.151.218 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes i agree with mhking, Queen of Pop is fair and the media all over the world has branded her that in many occasions. Even David Letterman in the Tonight Show addressed to his audiences; Madonna is the Queen of Pop and Paul the musician added ...the word icon in the list.

See Youtube.com. Thanks.

Confessions Tour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madonna's Net Worth?

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

Net worth

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

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

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

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

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

Constant changes

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

"She is also a fashion icon! Realist2 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC).", "August 16, 1917 - they added a fake birth year- I am old , like literally 100 years old... I cant act or sing just to let you know.... thanks again.", "She is the person who ever made it into the music world. She needs Tony thinks shes sooooooo hot though.", "maddona is now staring the the new video she is also a singer for cradle of filth." All 4 comments have been added from Jan. 28th to Jan. 30. by those 4 users: "Redmotherfive, 71.233.242.180, 81.145.241.87 and 69.130.190.15". I requested semi-protection.Israell 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's birthdate

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

203.79.252.193 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2/8/07 MADONNA HAS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST NOSTRILS...SHE LOOKS LIKE RAMOANA AFRIKA.

Last name

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

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

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

It should actually be pronounced "chi-CO-nay" in Italian. Sirlizard 14:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but she's American by birth and pronounces it herself as "Chick - ony" whether you "approve" of it or not so it doesn't matter how the Italians or the French or the Chinese, for that matter, pronounce it. It's her damn name after all. CanadianMist 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grammy Wins

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

Pointy Bra

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

Trivia

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

350 million records worldwide : World Best Selling Female Artist

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

• Please find the record cause I REALLY doubt that. Madonna has probably sold 250 million RECORDS (albums AND singles) total. If that.LAUGH90 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-best-sel...

Mariah Carey with the most Number Ones doesnt mean she is the world's biggest selling female due to:

1) US market share of the world music is 30-35% for album. She is big in the US (no doubt) but EU is 31-34 % the second largest market follow by Japan and UK. This is the market Mariah fails to penetrate until now. Her 17 th Number One hit in the US could not be translated into total sales because charts often include all the request by listeners and number of airplay in the radio station too.

2) In 2005 US was the biggest market for singles- 85% of world's market but Mariah havent had any hit albums not before 'Emancipation' is released. Her last 2 albums flopped before 2005.

3) She has only 3 Number One hits in UK and forget EU sales in France, Germany, France and etc. She is big in Japan but other artist also big in Australia and South America. Celine and Madonna are worldwide artist even they had less Number One in the US as compared to Mariah, Celine and Madonna are dominating UK (England, EU (France), Asia (japan), Australia and South America.

4) During her 'Glitter' album, her record company dropped the price of her single CD to 0.99 cents per disc and that why 'Loverboy' ended at Number 2. Forget her 'Charmbracelet' album...no top 10 hits at all.

• Her sales cannot be comfirmed officially because RIAA is US=based company not worldwide! Her sales figures is considered CLAIMs not FACTs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)