Talk:Madonna

Voice

As Madonna is undoubtedly the most successful so9lo artist in history, maybe something should be said about her vocal profile, which, despite what people think, is amazing 3.2 octaves (more than Whitney) and 17.5 seconds kept for a note (more than Whitney), though in her life she has spanned 4.1 octaves. The fact that she doesn't always belt is another thing, plus a very eclectic voice. http://www.divadevotee.com/2009/03/madonna-vocal-profile.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.40.220 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus that entertainer is WP:PTOPIC. Not moved. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna Madonna → Madonna (disambiguation)

– I believe this was proposed before, but I think when individuals search "Madonna", it should redirect to this page. I think Wikipedia's intentions should be to direct the individual to the most searched page. The disambiguation page should be at the top. I would like to hear what others think. I searched Madonna and went to that "disambiguation" page and don't think most people will be searching for the other uses as much. Please discuss. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC). Marty2Hotty (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

comment I've added links to past move discussions to the top of the page. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: No, the name Madonna is primarily about Mary (mother of Jesus). It doesn't matter which article is more the target of internet searches; that is not the only measurement of importance we have. More important is the long-established religious history of the word. Binksternet (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment At the height of her popularity some years ago, perhaps this would have been clear-cut. But as things stand now, you need to make a more convincing case. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explains the criteria for primary topic disambiguation. In this case there are two significant uses of the term Madonna (Madonna (entertainer) and Mary (mother of Jesus)) and several less significant ones. Madonna the entertainer clearly fails the A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance test (2000 years of significance v. 30 years). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Another example of why the relatively new "historical significance" criterion of primary topic, which conflicts with the traditional most usage criterion in cases like this, should not be there. In this case this page gets about 500k hits per month, while Mary (mother of Jesus) barely gets 1/10th of that[1]. And that's not even taking into account that many if not most people are getting there with "Mary", not "Madonna". This blatantly non-objective current naming is a violation of WP:NPOV - it's literally pushing the religious POV - contradicted by usage facts - that the religious figure is "more important". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not a religious guy, but 2000 years of one particular usage does not get erased by a few years of internet statistics. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And I cannot for the life of me see how the current situation, with Madonna as a dab page that references Madonna (entertainer) as its first dab option, two works by amd/or about Madonna (entertainer) as its second and third options, and only then references Mary (mother of Jesus) as its fourth option, can be remotely described as pushing the religious POV, blatantly non-objective and a violation of WP:NPOV. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • See !votes like the one below from Soosim ... personal opinion that "the religious meaning far outweighs... ". Granted it could be worse, with the religious figure at the base name, but the fact remains that if it wasn't for pro-religious bias, then this article about the overwhelmingly most common use of this name would be at Madonna, and the dab page would be at Madonna (disambiguation). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Drivel. What evidence do you have for these allegations? None at all. Soosim's comment did not say that the religious meaning outweighed the others because it was religious. Stop wilfully misinterpreting comments to support your POV and accusing those who oppose you of bias. As I have said, I am not religious in any way, shape or form, and I support the retension of the status quo. Why? Because I have common sense and appreciate that decades do not outweigh centuries, that pop culture does not trump history, and that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia not a fluffy fancruft website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a manual of 21st century culture. The primary meaning of Madonna is still the Mother of Jesus. And no, I'm not in any way religious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - i think the religious meaning far outweighs the current one. nothing wrong with madonna entertainer. Soosim (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I think that the disambiguation at the top would suffice enough. When someone says Madonna they mean the performer and they usually say Mother Mary or another name. Others may hear people call her Madonna but I have never once heard Mother Mary be called Madonna. Pop culture over religion would be a good argument if Madonna hadn't been around for over three decades and a big influence in those decades along with the nickname Madonna not being the most common for Mary. Trenton Davis (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Madonna" when used to refer to Mary is (in English-language countries) most commonly found in art, where it is extremely common, has been for centuries and no doubt will be for centuries to come, long after the singer has been largely forgotten. It's ironic, I think, that people are proposing this move when the singer is, of course, named after the mother of Jesus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Name derivation is evidence neither for nor against primacy. Powers ^T 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was. I said it was ironic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - As currently, the singer is more important than the Mother of Jesus. --Il223334234 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why the religious topic are always primary? --Il223334234 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • They're not. They just tend to have a longer history of usage. These allegations that this is somehow a violation of NPOV motivated by religious belief are tiresome. You don't have to be religious to consider that usage over centuries is more important than usage over a couple of decades; you just have to have common sense, an understanding of history and an appreciation that pop culture is not the be all and end all of knowledge. The sort of people who think the singer is the primary topic here are probably the same sort of people who fill up lists of "greatest singles of all time" with songs released in the last ten years. It's pure recentism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; the two topics are far too competitive with each other to determine a primary topic. Madonna may be getting more hits now, but the use of the term in art has long-standing notability that cannot be ignored. This has nothing to do with promoting religion -- I have long been opposed to giving primary topic status to articles like Ruth and Sarah -- but a) giving the readers what they want, and b) academic respectability. Powers ^T 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The entertainer is the primary topic of Madonna. Most of people around the world don't use or even know that Madonna is the name of Mary (mother of Jesus). Wikipedia should be neutral, this site is not only for certain religious belief. Why is it such a big problem, when the article Mary (mother of Jesus) doesn't use Madonna page? Bluesatellite (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just for comparison, Wikipedias in other 47 different languages use "Madonna" page for Madonna Ciccone. Just check it! It proves that many nations or languages don't recognize Madonna as Virgin Mary, but Madonna as entertainer. I believe that Wikipedia should have worldwide point of view. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this is English Wikipedia. What other languages use is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • 'Madonna' is an Italian word, not English. Yes, this is English Wikipedia, but it should represent WP:Worldwide view, not just Christians view or English-speaking people's point of view. I have proved that most of people around the world did not recognize Madonna as Virgin Mary. That's it. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it's a word of Italian origin which has entered the English language. You have proved nothing. Other Wikipedias, most of them much smaller and with a more limited editing base than English Wikipedia, are not binding on this one. And yes, English Wikipedia is meant to represent "English-speaking people's point of view". That's why naming conventions state WP:USEENGLISH! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Bluesatellite. And Mary is "Ma Donna", not "Madonna" Unreal7 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, Mary is Madonna. In this case the words are always run together. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I could say my reasons, but the fact that this is a debate and that everybody does not agree on Madonna as the primary topic is enough.I ^help_dןǝɥ I 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Madonna is moar important dan da virgin--QUEEN HURT (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The fact that Madonna gets more page views than Mother Mary is one reason. The fact that most of the people who went to the Mother Mary page most likely did not get there by searching Madonna is another. Regardless of popularity, one can not deny that at this moment in time, Madonna is the most famous person alive ever since the death of Michael Jackson. Saying one is more important than the other is a matter of opinion which, to my understanding, is something that Wikipedia is not suppose to have. Not only does Madonna get more views regularly than Mother Mary, but (and this may be an opinion here) she is also more relevant today. Considering there are so many different religions or lack-there-of, and people in the world today are not as religious as they may have been hundreds of years ago. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose. While I'm not the biggest fan of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's "long-term significance" criterion (it is often misused, IMO), I think this is a perfect case of when it should be used. It is obvious that the mother of Jesus and Madonna (art) have a much larger long-term significance. If one article meets one of the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria and another article (or two) meet the other criterion, then I think it's apparent that there is no clear primary topic and that a dab page is the best option. FWIW, I'm not religious. Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because rename request is based solely on assumption. No statistics are given to establish an overwhelming clear primary use. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no clear cut WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it will all be dependent on one's point of view, but (in opposition to the order listed on the disambig page), Madonna Louise Ciccone, the Bay City entertainer, does not eclipse the primacy of the "Original", or depictions of.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not seem to be the Primary Topic, regardless of personal religion, the term Madonna, in English, refers to the religious figure. --MrBoire (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because people who think that "Madonna is the most famous person alive ever since the death of Michael Jackson" scare me. Deor (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thats not even a just reason. It doesn't say most popular it says most famous. Even kids know who Madonna is. Her fame has crossed so many age boundaries. How many people can you really name that do not know who she is? Considering in sales she is behind him as the 4th highest seller. Current pop icons do not count because they are only relevant to the time. Your personal feelings about her are irrelevant. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC))
    • Having trouble with humor, are we? Let me, then, clarify that my "vote" was a joke, and I no more expect the closer of this discussion to take it into account than I expect him or her to take into account the opinion of the "most famous person alive" guy. The truth behind my statement, however, is that an encyclopedia needs to take a somewhat wider historical view than "since the death of Michael Jackson" and that some whippersnapper's view of the comparative "relevance" of Ms. Ciccone and the Virgin Mary is not much of a contribution to this discussion. (And such people do scare me.) Deor (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I said that she's the most famous person alive since his death, I didn't say that she was irrelevant until then. Me saying "since the death of Michael Jackson" was only to state her relevance in the world today. And again not only does the Madonna page get more hits but i highly doubt that the Virgin Mary is getting her very few views with the search of Madonna. Considering the Virgin Mary is a character in a book, I feel that a real person who has made a large contribution to our culture is much more important than a person who supposedly gave birth to a religious figure. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
        • Not everyone thinks pop stars are the most famous or most relevant people alive you know. It's a highly subjective comment and many would not agree with you. As to your last comment, I assume you can't be serious. Whether the Virgin Mary was real or fictitious is utterly irrelevant to her importance to world culture. The Virgin Mary is still significant to many millions worldwide (and no, I'm not one of them) 2,000 years after her death (or creation, if you prefer). Will Ms Ciccone be? Well, we don't know, but let's face it, probably not. But that's not even relevant, because, as stated above, in English, "Madonna" is usually a reference to an artistic representation of the Virgin Mary. Most churches in the world (Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic at least) have at least one, as do many millions of homes, and this has been the case for the last 2,000 years. Does that make this term less relevant than Ms Ciccone? I really think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support If this was based on the relative popularity of these 2 people it might be "no primary topic". However Madonna is how the singer is normally known, it's unusual to hear her called anything else. The religious figure is usually known as "the Virgin Mary" or "Mary mother of Jesus", it's relatively unusual to call her "Madonna", at least in the English-speaking countries. PatGallacher (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Does nobody actually read comments above before they post? "Madonna" in English usually refers to an artistic representation of the Virgin Mary, not the Virgin Mary herself, and in that sense it is very common in the English-speaking world. Read any guidebook that mentions a church! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I have read the prior discussion, but images of the Virgin Mary are not common in Protestant churches. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Not in non-conformist churches, but they are very common in Anglican churches, and even more common in Catholic and Orthodox churches. The term is also commonly used in art history and many Madonnas appear in art galleries all over the world. This is not a religious issue, but one of common terminology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If you google Madonna -wikipedia and it's page after page of results about the entertainer, so she is certainly primary with respect to usage. As far as the art form goes, Madonna (art) would stay where it is regardless of the outcome here. If anything, I would expect its prominence to increase after a move, since it would get a hat note on the singer's article. The "long term significance" criteria is designed to make it easier to designate an academic topic as primary, which in this case would be the art form. That would actually be my first choice. Neither the entertainer nor the DAB have long-term significance. So if those are choices, the long-term significance issue should not be considered. Kauffner (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• oppose In this case, there are strong arguments for both Madonnas, so in the absence of clear consensus on a single primary topic, a DAB page is the right solution. Note that those above saying the Virgin Mary is the primary topic, if that is your argument, then you should be proposing to move Madonna to point to Virgin Mary. My argument is that instead, there is a stalemate, neither one can claim primacy, so we create a dab.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. It's important to remember that this isn't a popularity contest between the entertainer and the religious figure; we're just trying to help people get to the article they are looking for. I also note that there is a cost of not making the entertainer the primary topic, which is the ongoing task of disambiguating the new links created to Madonna on a daily basis, almost all of which are referring to the entertainer. Nonetheless, I think that the long-term significance of Madonna (art) does mean that the entertainer narrowly misses the mark for being made the primary topic. It is, however, appropriate for the entertainer to remain listed first on the DAB, because that is what most people are looking for.--Trystan (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I am seeing a few support opinions based on "current popularity", however per WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I'd say Madonna the "mother of Jesus" has a slightly greater enduring notability over Madonna from Michigan.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Popularity shouldn't dictate whether or not an article receives prominence over another with an identical name. If I search for "MJ" I don't get redirected to Michael Jackson's page in spite of "MJ" being almost historically attributed to the entertainer. --Valce Talk 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a completely different situation. "MJ" is a nickname not the person's actual name. Even though Madonna's full name isnt Madonna it is her stage name and what she is known as. Michael Jackson's stage name is not MJ it is Michael Jackson. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote: MDNA Vogue Infobox Picture

Here is the edited (lightened & cropped) version of the MDNA Vogue picture that was approved by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MDNA_Vogue.jpg

An editor insists no consensus was reached and this picture can't still be used. A vote is indeed needed.

• Support Whenever I see this picture in the Infobox, it looks high quality to me. The larger version looks fine too. Also, most editors seemed to agree the Vogue picture should be used. Israell (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; the lightened version loses far too much detail (in white areas of the image) compared to the version on Commons, and it makes her face looked washed out. Powers ^T 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I prefer da vogue one put it bak--QUEEN HURT (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I prefer the vogue one. The 4 year gap is too big for Madonna she really looks different every few years. The vogue one should be updated once a higher quality one is found but I think a picture of her performing vogue on the MDNA tour is great because of the outfit! Trenton Davis (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support – the 2008 photo is too old, I cannot see anything wrong with the proposed MDNA Tour photo. jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 20:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Really? You can't see the blown highlights in her shirt and the paleness of her face? Powers ^T 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I prefer the Vogue picture, it is too small. You can barely see her face and if it were to be resized then it would no longer be high quality. I think that instead of holding a vote, we should be looking for a different picture. At least one that was taken after early 2011. It would still be more recent than the current photo. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose The purpose of infobox picture is to identify subject easily, that's why high-resoulution and clear-looking picture is more preferable. The 2008 photo has more quality compared to Vogue photo. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to agree with the two above. The photo is cropped too small and it isn't exactly a "oh yes, this is Madonna picture". That would be the current one, where you can clearly see her face and who she is. It may be a few years old, but that doesn't make any difference. Statυs (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – The photo is too small with poor clarity. The present one might be a little old but is definitely a better picture than the suggested one. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Pic is too small and not the best representation of the artist. As the MDNA Tour has recently started, we should wait for better quality pictures to surface. Meanwhile, the previous picture is OK. —Gheiratina ^(Touch) 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How about we use this one?? Tiff it's more recent and high quality??--189.241.40.230 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Her eyes are closed and her face is turned. An infobox picture has to accurately portray what the person looks like; meaning that there is nothing stopping the viewer from recognizing who it is. Statυs (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

People... What do you mean by "too small" Look at this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britney_Europe.jpg When in its Infobox, the Britney picture looks just as small as the Vogue one. Anyway... I'll look for another pic. Israell (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The current photo is fine. Statυs (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Legacy section

Needs cleaning up. Much of it is just a string of gushing quotes about her influence and skill - the kind of writing that's regularly produced by music and celeb magazines. The section makes next to no attempt to discern between her contributions as a musician and as a business person, and much of what gets said about her business skills could be said about almost anyone who has been hot property in showbiz and is determined to run their own business - something she is not at all unique in doing. Elvis Costello is probably just as skilled at managing his career and at reinventing himself musically, but he is operating in a slightly less commercially blockbuster part of the market. Strausszek (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think it needs to be cleaned as well as many other pages such as Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson. This is the norm for legacy sections on wikipedia unless of course you are on the bias list (them being Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Lady Gaga, Elvis Presley and Whitney Houston). There are plenty of reliable sources that talk of how unique she is and of her influence. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

I agree she's outstanding in many ways, certainly in her ability to resonate with the climate of the age over a long time. But a quote like this one has no business in thát section or indeed the article, it's almost a sales blurb:

"As Taraborrelli noted, she already showed strong business sensibilities early in her career when she signed Freddie de Mann, Michael Jackson's former manager, to manage her career. As she said to Smash Hits magazine, "I thought, who's the most successful person in the music industry and who's his manager? I want him." Since it was Jackson, Madonna wanted de Mann more than anything else, and chance came when she learned that they had parted ways. After signing de Mann, Madonna's associates had expressed their apprehension as to whether that was a good business decision by her. Madonna was adamant that since de Mann was free he would be able to devote all his time into his career. True to her, Madonna's popularity increased significantly, being asked to do more promotional tours and media appearances" - This is not about business skills, it's about being able to identify one of the most successful agents in the business, who must have been a guy everybody who cared professionally about the business side of popular music knew about at the time, and having the financial muscle (through the record company) and opportunity to hire him. And the rise in public visibility could have been influenced by any number of factors other than de Mann, first off by MTV. Might as well have said, "Michael Jackson showed his genius in appreciating music when he bought most of the Beatles song catalogue".Strausszek (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only do things such as this have nothing to do with her legacy but they make her seem less than what she is. I think that her changing pop music, women in music industry, fashion in the music industry, and morals in the music industry should be talked about more. I mean how often do your CONTEMPORARIES take influence from you? This happens with very few/only the most iconic artists in history. Meanwhile, pages for Michael Jackson are being checked round the clock to make sure he is seen as the creator of music and the father of jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.42.115 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned out the bit about de Mann and a few other cheesy, highly overstated or irrelevant spots in the section, but there's more to do. Strausszek (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in the process can you please add some other things to replace them. The section above this one has a few things they skipped over. (72.219.42.115 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

I think that while we're at it, someone should add a sub-section under her legacy called Philanthropy for her fight for women's rights and LGBT rights (right now she's being sued for supporting gay rights in Russia) as well as her charity work. Also, a way to replace some of the bullshit in the legacy section thats already there, you could add her most important controversies such as the ageist controversy she is facing now and the controversy she faced on her previous tour and the controversy (SuperCell3000 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

Records

Why is it that artists like madonna have no records shown but people like Michael Jackson have the Guinness book of world records on his achievements page? Then when i asked why they did not add her records, an editor responded with "That is not an award." Wikipedia is bias (72.219.42.115 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Request for Legacy

I am requesting that Madonna's Legacy section have the information about her being listed as one of the All-Time 100 Top Fashion Icons by Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2110513_2110627_2110639,00.html

As well as Pete Wilson using her to help his chance of election and the controversy because of it http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2129,00.html

As well as he troubles with the Vatican being named 4th Top Vatican Pop Culture Moment in history by time magazine. This kind of controversy has influenced artists such as Lady Gaga with songs of catholic relations. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2026525_2026524_2026526,00.html

As well as her being number 36 on Rolling Stone Magazine's list of 100 Greatest artists of All-Time. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/madonna-19691231

I am also asking permission to add a section about her charity work. I dont really know how things work as far as adding sections or adding information. So i am assuming that the protocol is to give the sources here before adding anything.

Madonna was also called the Queen of Fashion by Billboard

http://www.billboard.com/#/photogalleries/madonna-s-fashion-evolution-50-iconic-looks-1006547552.story

(72.219.42.115 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this a go, though with 314 references to sift through, it may take a few days. As a first port of call, I'll be looking at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 and seeing if any of the problems listed there still exist, and if so, do they apply to the lesser standards at GAN (eg: a Fox News article may be bashed at FAC for not being a "prestige" source, but as far as GAN is concerned, if it's reliable and written about with a NPOV, it's okay). Watch this space. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Checking links brings up 3 dead ones : #78, #121 and #243. Tried them several times and each one consistently reports an HTTP 500 error. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done except for ref #121, for me it is working. 11Jorn ^talk

• I'm a little concerned about a few of the negative or potentially upsetting comments that are currently attributable only to a single source. Is it really necessary to mention she saw her late mother's mouth sewn up, or that she was specifically asked to perform fellatio when attacked? For the former, I'd just trim the quote down (lengthy quotes run the risk of being a borderline copyvio), and for the latter I think just saying "she was returning from a rehearsal when she was attacked in an alleyway" will still convey the sentiment of vulnerability that we want to get across here.
  •  Done omitted the mention of fellatio. The sentence even linked to an article on it, which is quite disheartening, I agree. And contains far too much potential as libel to be kept in, supported only by one source. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously as far as images go, we can't use what we don't have, but for someone like Madonna, a selection of photos from, say 1984, 1990, 1998 and today will get across her desire to continually reinvent her image far quicker than any text could.

• Reference 19 (Rolling Stone biography) doesn't mention the alternate title of "Truth or Dare" being "In Bed With Madonna". However, I think this should be very easy to source, as certainly the U.K. I've seen the phrase "In bed with 'x'" been used for other things as a pastiche / parody of the documentary style, such as In Bed With Chris Needham. I thought Louis Theroux did an "In bed with..." series, but it appears I'm confusing it with something else.

 Done. 11Jorn ^talk

Is Digital Spy really a reliable source? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 3 (Time piece) is behind a firewall, so I can't check if it contains the assertions referenced in the article.

•  Done I've removed this as #4 supports this. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 25 (Allmusic discography) doesn't mention how many weeks "Like A Virgin" was at number one. Chart Stats is good for resolving this sort of thing.

•  Done I've used a Billboard source. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 32 (MTV awards piece) doesn't mention that her first MTV awards performance was "iconic"

•  Not done The title of the article refers to the performances as iconic and goes on to describe other similar performances.

• In the last paragraph of the "1982-85" section, "Madonna remained defiant and unapologetic" might want a citation - reference 44 (MusicoMania article) can be used for this

•  Done

• Reference 34 (asserting diamond certification of "Like A Virgin") doesn't seem to contain anything about this

•  Done What an awfully confusing site! It's a database of Gold & Platinum records - not Diamond! It's kind of useless as although the number of times Like A Virgin is made platinum means it is diamond, it's not explicit. I've removed it. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning the Wembley gig on the "Who's That Girl" tour drew an audience of 70,000? Reference 50 can be used to cite this

•  Done Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph dealing with Pepsi sponsorship is cited to the Fox source. As it contains potentially controversial information, it may be worth finding a secondary source to back up some of the things stated here.

•  Done Added a NY Times source also. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful about citing tabloid stuff like People and The Daily Mail - in this case, I think you've done the right thing here by citing multiple sources and sticking to plain facts

• The timescale for the "Blonde Ambition" tour (asserted here as four months) is not cited

• Does it need sourcing? It's not really challenging. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• For a good article, yes, it should be cited. Otherwise somebody could claim it was three months and start edit warring about it - unlikely, but possible. (And believe me, you'll never ceased to be amazed at what people will edit war about!) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Reworded. Jennie | ☎ 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly what is reference 75 ("Warner finds solace in farewell CD") citing?

• I think it's a magazine/newspaper? Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Citation 81 does mention anything about Madonna dating Tony Ward. Per our BLP policy, this needs sourcing ASAP or removing.

•  Done I couldn't find a reliable source, I'll remove it. Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 81 does state that Vanilla Ice was strongly critical of "Sex" - is this worth adding to the relevant point in the article

•  Done Jennie | ☎ 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reference for criticism for "Body Of Evidence" seems to come from user generated content on Rotten Tomatoes, which I think is hence unreliable. FWIW I don't dispute the claim - my then housemate went to see this when it was first released and stated it was probably the worst film he'd ever seen - but it does need a reliable source.

•  Not done The collection of critic reviews can be found half way down the page, all of which show a negative reception. Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 36 (Billboard chart stats) doesn't state how many weeks "Take A Bow" topped the charts for

•  Done I've replaced it. Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 100 doesn't cite that she wore 370 different costumes on set

•  Done I've removed the exact number as it cannot be cited. Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick status update on where we are - I've done everything up to 1997, and I would estimate there's about another six hours' work to get the review finished. I'll see if I can get a bit more done later today, and in the week. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reference to Madonna having the most number two hits wikilinks to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones#Most number-two hits, but that section of the linked article no longer appears to exist

•  Done Re-linked Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 116 talks about "Ray Of Light" being used in the promotion of Windows XP - however this put against a sentence talking about the single's chart position

•  Done Replaced Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 123 (CNN article about "What It Feels Like For a Girl") is cited for the phrase "depicted Madonna committing murders and involved in car accidents", but the reference itself merely says "a crime and vandalism spree"

•  Done Replaced Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 129 cites the "Golden Raspberry" award for "Die Another Day", but it's not obvious from the link where this information is

•  Done Way too confusing, I removed it. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 144 states the Re-Invention World Tour "a gross in the $120 million range", but the article states it earned $125 million

•  Done Reworded. Jennie | ☎ 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 150 is supposed to be describing "Confessions of a Dance Floor" , but the reference seems to just talk more about the chart and sales statistics

•  Not done Ref #144 is about Tsunami Aid, which Ref do you mean? Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Meant reference 152, sorry --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Removed this, couldn't cite it. Jennie | ☎ 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning that "Hung Up" samples "Gimme Gimme Gimme" heavily? The BBC source mentions it and goes into some depth about it

•  Done I've included this, surprised no one has already. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 153 states the Confessions Tour grossed about $193.7 million, not £194.7 million as stated in the article

•  Done I've replaced it. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 155 is used to cite the phrase "bishops from Düsseldorf." But according to the source, the complaint came from Bishops about a concert in Dusseldorf.

•  Done Reworded. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 156 (People article about the response to using a cross on the Confessions tour) doesn't appear to have the quote cited

•  Done The quote is on the right, in a scroll-down box. Jennie | ☎ 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 168 states I Am Because We Are received critical acclaim - worth adding to the article

•  Done Included this. Jennie | ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 169 (LA times article on Filth and Wisdom) does not contain the quote cited

•  Done Removed it. Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 188 is used to cite "led to a rift between them [Madonna and Christopher Ciccone" - this might be original research, instead quote directly what the source says about the relationship between the two

•  Done Changed Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The whole of the "2010–present" I think goes into too much depth when compared to the rest of the article, and puts undue weight on it. I think this is a more general problem with BLP articles where the subject continues to be active during the lifetime of Wikipedia, and people add in the odd sentence here and there as they find things in the news. For instance, the Material Girl fashion line probably needs a sentence or two, and the critical response to MDNA can be trimmed down to something similar without all the quotes.

•  Done Trimmed this down, think it could even further to be honest. Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 214 states "Critical respones to the film [W.E.] has been negative, but looking at the actual critic reviews on Metacritic, it would seem that "mixed" would be a better term

•  Done I agree, changed Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• In "Influences", it states "Madonna is dedicated to Kabbalah", yet at least one reference I looked at (sorry, can't remember which one now!) says she's distanced herself from it in recent years.

•  Not done There are sources on the internet showing her attending the NYC Kabbalah Centre in May 2012. Jennie | ☎ 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have now gone though the whole career section. There's still quite a lot of the article to go, but a lot of it is cited from books I don't have, so it's impossible to check a lot of this. As it stands, I can see over 30 unresolved issues, which is a lot of work to get through. Even disregarding the rest of the article, do you think you have all these fixed within a week, bearing in mind there might well be things I haven't spotted yet that also needed to be added to the workload? If I find substantially more issues with the rest of the article, it really does start to cross the line between "On Hold" and "Fail", I'm afraid. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "Musical style" is mostly reliant on a single book source, and would seem to be just one person's opinion. I think this entire paragraph can go without losing anything, except possibly the influence on the gay community (which I think would require a couple of sources) and the critical acclaim of Ray of Light (which is documented elsewhere)

•  Done I agree, it's very clunky, I've removed and merged. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 235 cites that Madonna was whipped with a rubber hose as a child. Again, per our BLP policy this needs citing multiple times or toned down

•  Not done I could understand if this didn't come from the original source, but it is the original, and any other sources would just be others referring to the original. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The quote from reference 268 talks about lip syncing in general - the sentence here gives the impression it's attributed specifically to Madonna, which strays into original research

•  Done Reworded

• The quote from reference 275 is a bit out of context, and overlong. In the same source, Elton also says "I don't think it's the best Madonna record and I'm a big fan." The quote gives the impression he can't stand her, rather then merely being disappointed with her post Ray of Light work

•  Done I've re-orded this section and trimmed the quote. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There's an update here - they've made up, apparently!--Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the "Legacy" section wants at least one other source attributed to it lest it be accused of puffery. As reference 276 is behind a paywall, I can't easily check it

•  Done Added a source from MTV. Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 284 does contain the quote cited

•  Done It doesn't - removed. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Aside from her critical acknowledgement, Madonna has also earned overwhelming commercial accomplishments" - overwhelming to whom? Probably just best to stick to the bare facts cited by the sources

•  Done Very weasely, removed.Jennie | ☎ 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 287 seems to be a search box that doesn't support the sentence its cited to.

•  Done Agreed, removed. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unlike reference 288, I wouldn't describe Madonna as a "rock" artist - "dance / pop" artist, maybe. Still, if it's in a good reference (which it is), it can stay

• Reference 289 states that the Sticky & Sweet Tour "remains the highest-grossing tour of all time by a solo artist". This reference is four years old and is just waiting to become in accurate. Better to explicitly state, "as of 2008, it was the highest-grossing tour of all time by a solo artist"

•  Not done This record still stands though, and until something can challenge it, there is no reason to remove it. I wikilinked List of highest-grossing concert tours to support this further. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• The alt description of File:Madonnaperformingstickyandsweettour2008.jpg is, well "interesting", to say the least.

•  Done Ahahaha, I have to say I thought this was quite funny, who ever went to that much trouble is dedicated. I removed it. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• There a few bits in the second paragraph of "Legacy" not attribute to any source - I've tagged these.

•  Done Sourced. I've replaced the third quote as it slipped into original research. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of "Legacy" seems to repeat a few things already stated in "Musical Style", particularly her ability to reinvent herself.

•  Done I removed parts of it, but it is important. Her ability to reinvent herself is arguably key to her legacy. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 299 seems to be a bit POV pushing.

• Hmm...As this is from a published source I'm not sure what to do. I think I'll leave it for someone else to decide. Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 306 is behind a firewall

•  Done Removed.

Well I think that's it, so I'm putting the review On hold until everything else is resolved, at which point I'll do a final check, and if all's good, it'll pass.

And finally, as some light hearted relief ... some personal memories that didn't make it to the article (probably due to lack of references) are Doc Cox singing a faux nursery rhyme on That's Life! circa 1990 with the words "Twinkle, twinkle, little star ... what is in Madonna's bra?" and the occasional reference to Madonna in the British rock press as "Madge" (whether this is disparaging or affectionate went unrecorded). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it turns out "Madge" is reliably sourced so might be worth adding somewhere after all!--Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Someone else has done this :) Jennie | ☎ 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through again and I've found a few minor MOS issues, which I've fixed myself, which means the only outstanding issue I can see is I believe "Truth or Dare" being named "In Bed With Madonna" in Europe is cited to an unreliable source. I'll have a look round for a better source myself now, after which we'll be done. Watch this space.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously???

Is it me or has this page been ignored for the past 2 months? (72.219.42.115 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

• Have you seen the 40+ issues in the transcluded GA review directly above this? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---That may be true but considering that is the only thing thats been paid attention to i dont really think it counts. Especially considering thats something thats been up for a source review so of course a site such as wikipedia would pay attention to that. They want to make sure their information is correct, however, that is not the only section thats been added in the past 2 months (72.219.42.115 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC))