Talk:Madonna/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Featured article as an example

Only 7 out of 111 Madonna wiki-articles are featured and 2 are good. English wiki as only "good" one makes things more diffucult for other language. E. g., since 2013 I'm trying to attain "good" status in Russian wikipedia. After more than 1800 of my edits in 4 years the community is still against it — they say "theme is not revealed". Ladies and gentlemen, I don't mean disrespect to English community but can you do a little bit more to have "featured star" back? I don't see any reasons why you shouldn't use Rihanna's featured article as an example... with YouTube template, Personal life, etc. Thank you. Tintin-tintine (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It would probably take a while to get this back up to FA class. Also, Rihanna's page (at least on the English Wikipedia) never at any point passed for FA or even GA. In any case, YouTube template isn't worth including here or there when A) the pages only need one infobox, B) they're not professional YouTube users unlike Smosh, Markiplier, Nigahiga, or Pewdiepie. Personal Life section would do much more bad than good and has been repeatedly rejected when it's basically asking to be overfilled with trivia, fancruft, gossip, rumors, and possibly hoaxes. That magnet for trouble isn't a risk worth taking. All of the relationships worth mentioning are already appropriately integrated within the "life and career" section anyway and were often involved in her professional endeavors (i.e. co-starred with Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise and with Warren Beaty in Dick Tracy). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And just to point it out to you Tintin, its not onus of anybody here to have to make it a featured article. Editors should not be forced for anything here. The article is pretty good shape but not FA standard yet. Mind you this was a featured article and lack of content was not a reason for its demotion. It was because some user fabricated many stuff in the article and got banned. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand you don't HAVE to do anything. I just want to explain the situation as I see it. Many Russian journalists and people are using Wiki as a starting point. And featured or, to some extend, good article is considered a reliable source. And, in Soviet Russia there were several issues with Madonna: almost a decade of so-called "marxist translations" of Madonna. When every mention of religion was erased. But Madonna stated as "God-hater and religion-hater Louise Veronica Ciccone who took Virgin Mary's name as her pseudonym to hurt feelings of believers" remained even after the fall of Communism. E. g., even Russian Rolling Stone hates her and portrays as vampire-like "zero-talent" - and they've translated Diplo's 2015 interview quote about "Ghosttown" single "she didn't get a fair shot" as "she's decided not to look for easy path". Religious activists who filled a suit against her in 2012 were surprised to find that her mononym is AS STATED BY SOME PEOPLE, as they said, her actual first name, and her mother's name. This claim was a spiritual foundation of their suit, basically. And journalists still write it, because this article is "just wiki without status". And, as Russian community is against any "good" association with Madonna, even through wiki-article's status, it makes things harder. If English wiki-article was featured then I could just translate it and get a better chance at "good" status with "translated-template". Only 20% of Russians know foreign languages. People who decide yes-or-not for wiki-article status are not always among those 20%. Madonna is almost as popular in Russian wiki as she is in English: November 2017 page view stats: 827th place in Russian to 719th place in English wikipedia.
I know that Madonna'll never visit Russia again and this is not English community's problem. But I just wanted to point out that all this religious activist's madness about "she brought sin to Holy Russia" has started on September 2006: wnen general Russian people were prepering themselves for Madonna's Paul-Mccartney-like visit to Kremlin and chat with Putin. But Putin accidently kissed young boy's stomach on camera. It was in June. So, people were still talking about it when Madonna's announced her first visit to Russia. As Marat Guelman reveiled this year, Putin didn't hate Madge. More so, Putin's 30th birthday was on the same day as "Everybody" release in 1982 (Russian time), and his wedding in 1982 was on the day of Madonna's first album release. These two were really cosmically convergence. Poet Bykov was writing about it Bykov was writing about in 2006 (book in 2014). But then the priest Andrey Kuraev appeared on prime TV with his strange phrase about "admiration of Madonna leading to Kondopoga" and "ex-prostitune Luise was masturbating on stage using crucifixion [as a dick]", and he also organized protests. All attention was not on Putin kissing a boy or Putin and Madonna meating but on her "blasphemous" show. Then after her 2012 show half-educated deputy Milonov has managed to impose state laws about "homosexuality and pedophilia propaganda among minors" and to "defend the feelings of believers". Now, because Putin was shy to meet Madonna in 2006, this country is not far from abortion ban and obligatory motherhood for girls before 23 (or Army Force service) - another Milonov's initiatives. She's touched the unconsciosness instead of consciousness - and good wikipedia article about Madonna could have stop the madness. But now it's too late. Sorry. I just think you should know it, too. Tintin-tintine (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Madonna's net worth

@IndianBio: Based on the last discussion, it seems there's no clear consensus. So tell me, what is not so reliable about Wealth-X? All these net-worth claims were purely estimations. Nobody knows how much money Madonna has, except herself and the God above. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, I think the main problem with Wealth-X is its reliability. We all know that Forbes also does estimation and we cannot ever come to an exact figure of how much entertainers have earned, but its the mode in which a company has deduced the wealth which I believe is important. Forbes ballpark estimation is thus considered much more reliable since they have been doing it for much longer throughout the years, than something like Wealth-X, which is a recently developed company with unclear protocols. Oh and pinging @SNUGGUMS:. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wealth-X is not reliable according to who? CNN, Billboard, The Wall Steet Journal, BBC, and a lot of reliable sources have used Wealth-X in their publication. It's not our opinion to determine the reliability, it's WP:V and WP:RS. Are we really saying CNN has no credibility to rely on Wealth-X? I'd say we should include both figures, per WP:BALANCE. Both are estimations, and the truth might be somewhere between them. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

None are reliable. All are estimates, with a good dose of guestimation. These estimates should be treated like any secondary sources, and measured by reputability, not reliability. Multiple reputable estimates should be reported, if any are. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

IKR, it's not like Madonna give Forbes the exclusive authorization to audit her assets and bank account. Ironically, Forbes also used Wealth-X data many times So it must be reputable enough, isn't it? ;) Bluesatellite (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar enough with Wealth-X to say how accurate it tends to be, I will say that the Forbes link used is much more recent (from this past May) than the Wealth-X figure (from December 2014), and we should go with the latest known credible estimates. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: If it's not credible, why Forbes used Wealth-X's data in its many articles? It's ironic. Per SmokeyJoe, Multiple reputable estimates should be reported. Both Wealth-X and Forbes figures were all estimations, none of which is a factual truth. I have proved the reputability of Wealth-X, which is used by world's major publications, including Forbes itself. If Mariah Carey page weirdly lists two birth dates, I think there's no problem in listing two net-worth figures. Using only Forbes number against WP:BALANCE, since the Wealth-X figure is considered by lots of WP:RS. I wouldn't say Forbes is more accurate or Wealth-X is more accurate, because it lean towards WP:BIAS. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how legitimate Wealth-X is, I was saying we should go with more recent known givings, and it's quite possible that her wealth dropped over a period of 29 months. It has nothing to do with favoring one source or the other as more authoritative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Then, what is the problem of having two figures??? The number did not drop in 29 months, they both have two different calculations method. In fact, her Forbes number is always growing in each Forbes report (2013, 2015, 2017). Bluesatellite (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Achievement

Forbes estimates Madonna's net-worth at $580 million as of May 2017, while Wealth-X estimated her net-worth at $800 million as of December 2014.

^^^Tell me what is so wrong to include the sentence above? Bluesatellite (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously not a problem limited to this article, but if Wikipedia reports a single value for "net worth", the implication to the reader is that it is the most accurate available figure, and will be prone to being misused as accurate. I note that the source does not detail their sources, assumptions, or estimates of uncertainty. If multiple independent sources have made different estimates, reporting the multiple estimates is the clearest way to say that there is uncertainty in the estimate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Curious now, what multiple sources we have other than Forbes and Wealth-X? For the latter I would very much like to pass it through WP:RSN once. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I am not across the set of reputable sources estimating wealth of individuals. It is of public interest, as judging by popular media reporting the numbers. Forbes is the most well known, and others copy their numbers, often without attribution. http://money.cnn.com gets into this game too. The problem is the infox reporting "Net worth U.S. $580 million (May 2017 estimate)", albeit with a reference, being read as a statement of fact. The source doesn't provide details, you just have to trust them. That's a little substandard. It would be better to report "Forbes' estimate of Net worth U.S. $580 million (May 2017)", because that figure is as much Forbes as it is Madonna. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I like that SmokeyJoe, maybe we can have a little {{efn}} attached to the line? Indicating that this is a Forbes estimate. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Forbes gonna be the great source by "appeal to tradition". Not bad. They also have errors and others too, doesn't matter how verifiably are. Wealth-X could be reliable, even if they have be mentioned by the international press. But in the internet era, a hox can be viral and be a cycle information. Whoever the source that you guys gonna use, like this maybe is better specify an "estimation by" or to present both "realities". Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 01:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Net worth should be removed......a criteria we should never use in FA or GA articles.....or anywhere for that matter. Highly unreliable guess work.--Moxy (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support removing it. Her net worth, as estimated by Forbes or anyone else, is not discussed anywhere in the article. The number is not reliable. The number is specific to a particular moment, if it was worth treatment, it should cover her worth and its changes over her lifetime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT Support removing net worth & Support $800 million figure (or any other above $500) if found to be reliably sourced. I have the same concerns as some of my peers have stated above regarding "Wealth-X". If other sources are found that don't link or rely on it, I support a range ie. 500-800 million est.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Either get it into the prose of the article, or get it out of the infobox. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that isn't necessary remove it. We should need a concensus above this article. Sometimes can be a trivia fact for some artists or how you present the information, but if we have reliable sources and favorable context, why not? after all... Madonna is by herfself a definition of celebrity, artist and businesswoman recognized as the "wealthiest woman in music industry" by decades not by one year, or two, is by decades. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand how being the wealthiest woman in music industry makes someone a bussinesswoman.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Do not misunderstands :) She is a businesswoman, since an age when woman, specially musicians, were not popular in the business. Be the "wealthiest woman in music industry" is just a fact. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Legacy vs Influence as section title.

The following discussion 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.

---

Withdrawn. After thinking it over and reading the opinions, I am convinced that this issue isn't worth fighting over on this page. LK (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

---

There is disagreement over the title for the subsection about the impact that Madonna has. Should it be titled Legacy [1] or Influence [2]?
There have been two recent RfCs that are pertinent to this issue, at Talk:Rihana and at BLP/noticeboard

--LK (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

!Votes by editors involved in this article

• Influence For the reasons that I have noted in the other RfCs, but mainly because it is a peacock term, and we should use the neutral term instead. LK (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Legacy – First of all beyond obvious what the term implies in respect to Madonna and the second where it is used. And secondly, there are three sources explicitly noting Madonna's "legacy" () in the section's first line itself. The BLP RFC clearly indicated to source the term, so there you go. Lawrence, try to read the section first the next time instead of wasting people's time please. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• Legacy per provided sources plus it's already common knowledge and quite clear from the section's content that she has a legacy. This is NOT "a peacock term" by any stretch and you very well know that, Lawrence, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise even if you do. It's painfully obvious that you created this RFC in bad faith deliberately dismissing references and even the RFC from BLPN you cited. As you've been told before, this campaign you have to remove "legacy" from section titles needs to stop. It's completely unwarranted and you are engaging in blatant WP:IDHT behavior. Furthermore, you know that "influence" sections are supposed to be about who someone is influenced by, not who they have influenced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Furthermore, you know that "influence" sections are supposed to be about who someone is influenced by, not who they have influenced."

I don't know that; can you cite policy or MoS language that demonstrates that this is a presumption supported by community consensus anywhere on the project? I personally think you are mistaken: I believe the average person thinks of an "Influence" section as being about the impact an individual had on a community, a science, or an art. I believe an "Influences" section is how most people label the concept you are descrbing: a summary of those forgoers whose own work was formative for the subject. I believe that's almost certainly the more common idiomatic usage of each, but I'd be surprised if there's ever been an explicit discussion about it anywhere on project. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if not explicitly noted in a policy or guideline page, it's basically standard practice to have an "influences" subsection of one's artistry section talking about who influenced that person/group. Having another section named "influence" talking instead about who they influenced could easily throw readers off and isn't a risk worth taking. I've sometimes seen "impact" (which would be more appropriate than "influence" as it's much easier to distinguish from an "influences" section), but let's honest; Madonna is widely known to have a legacy and that shouldn't be downplayed. Lawrencekhoo evidently doesn't care about any of that and blindly pretends as if the active can't have legacies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna also leave here what Cambridge dictionary says about legacy, indicating it to be both a monetary or property left to a person by someone who has died as well as something that is a result of events in the past. A good read and completely satisfies the fact that it can be used in the section header for Madonna, with the umpteen sources heralding and iterating the artist's impact on the art form. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

!Votes by uninvolved editors

• Legacy – per IndianBio "beyond obvious" - FlightTime (open channel) 05:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Lean towards "Influence", but I can't stress enough how little overall difference I find it makes in relation to the content--or any encyclopedic matter that would remotely make this worth bickering over. Both sides are far too entrenched here, given the innate subjectivity of the topic and the fact that you could spend weeks counting all of the articles written about this pop star and find more than enough "legacy" or "influence" references to make your case. I think "peacock term" is a big overstatement, but of the two, one does sound more objective than the other. But again, I can't stress enough that there is a hairsbreadth of difference between these options in terms of how well either would work here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Legacy - This seems like such a minor issue to me, but her stamp on the music industry is undeniable. I don't see a lot of difference to Madonna or Diana Ross, Beyoncé, Ben E. King, June Carter Cash, or Harry Nilsson. I'm not saying Elvis, Sinatra or the Beatles... but the term seems to be used for may popular artists here on Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Influence as legacy (at least to me) implies someone who is dead. But really, it does not matter. Renata (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Influence - having read through the ideas here and scanning through the previous threads, I have not found any compelling argument that pushes me past my initial inclination. I'm just not seeing legacy as being the appropriate (accurate and/or neutral) term to use for someone who is not only still alive, but still active. [summoned by bot] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Legacy seems "accurate" per definition. Thanks. --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Free discussion

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018

Chanage Age:59 to Age:60 82.70.38.136 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: she's still 59. On the 16th of August, her age will automatically update. Danski454 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

New Album will be called Italian American queen

she will release her new album in the spring of 2019

Stuart Price already annocuned that it will be called ITALIAN AMERICAN QUEEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:19A:59C0:5906:2FF6:3EEB:C9C9 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What crap? Source? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

LMGTFY offers No results found for "ITALIAN AMERICAN QUEEN" "Stuart Price" and one page with a few 2016 or older hits for "ITALIAN AMERICAN QUEEN" "Madonna", so no obvious need to discuss WP:CRYSTAL here. –2A03:2267:2:0:8955:BF05:FDF2:3A35 (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)