Jump to content

Talk:Madonna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.219.42.115 (talk) at 21:24, 27 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleMadonna is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 28, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
January 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 23, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 23, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 5, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 8, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
May 15, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Maintained

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong support - As currently, the singer is more important than the Mother of Jesus. --Il223334234 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why the religious topic are always primary? --Il223334234 (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Yes, but this is English Wikipedia. What other languages use is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • '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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Support per Bluesatellite. And Mary is "Ma Donna", not "Madonna" Unreal7 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 helpdןǝɥ I 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Madonna is moar important dan da virgin--QUEEN HURT (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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))[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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))[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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))[reply]
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.

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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



POLK COUNTY IN THIS BITCH!

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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) 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna&oldid=509497251"