Talk:Madonna/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

$120 million contract

The statement in the lead needs tightening. First off, it needs to be explained that this is not any ordinary record-deal that only includes album and singles sales, but one that relinquishes rights to all her present and future musical and musical-related en-devours, including tours, merchandise etc. Additionally, the source doesn't exactly say the amount in unprecedented, only that the deal has never been done; its the model for future deals of this kind.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Entertainer

It has been years now that I've been waiting for someone to change that title of the article. Madonna is an artist. I do not get "entertained" while listening to "This Used To My Playground" or "You Must Love Me". She performs her art, writes her songs, plays her guitar and sings. These are forms of art as is acting. When someone says "entertainer" most of the people would imagine a comedian or maybe a clown. I sincerely sense that this title was given by a person who doesn't like Madonna. If she is not called an "artist" then no other pop musician you can call "artist".

--Gross indecency (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What rape?

The "Influences" section says, "Conversely, author Lucy O'Brien feels that the impact of the rape is, in fact, the motivating factor behind everything Madonna has done, more important even than the death of her mother". What rape is that? No rape is mentioned anywhere else in the article. —Angr (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Its there in early life. Performing fellatio at knife-point. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sappy, irrelevant "Early life" info?

Does this kind of information really belong in an encyclopedia article? "Mrs. Ciccone, at a loss to explain her dire medical condition, would often begin to cry when questioned by Madonna, at which point Madonna would respond by wrapping her arms around her mother tenderly." "...and achieved notoriety for her unconventional behavior: she would perform cartwheels and handstands in the hallways between classes, dangle by her knees from the monkey bars during recess, and pull up her skirt during class—all so that the boys could see her underwear."

Really? She hung from the monkey bars during recess? She "wrapp(ed) her arms around her mother tenderly? Why is this even here? It reads like a cheesy biography written for Oprah's target audience, not a serious and informative encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.112.200 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you feel that way but it is not only just written for a sappyness, authors like Taraborrelli and Morton have openly written about her rebellious behaviour, which resulted from the death of her mother and the iciness of her father. They are just examples of Madonna not conforming to the pattern of how a good girl should behave. The implication of Madonna's mother's death has been heavily discussed in the influences sections and the implications it had on Madonna's career and shaping her for what she is today. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Whoopiedoo, 7 June 2011

Time to change the photo that appears on Madonna's wiki page. It's old, from 3 years ago, and worst of all, it doesn't represent her. It doesn't showcase her attitude, sex appeal, and energy which she is known for. This photo would be great: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrk-p3/3767119338/in/set-72157621751827855

Whoopiedoo (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done We do not use images because the subject is "not represented by how people see them". We use images about subject's face. The image you are trying to post has a license uncompatible with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ciccone: pronunciation

Wikipaedia article currently says that 'Ciccone' is 'chee-co-nay'. Since when!? Madonna and her family have never pronounced it that way. It's more like 'chikonee', with the first syllable ('chi') spoken very quickly and unstressed, the second syllable ('ko') spoken with emphasis, and the last syllable 'nee' pronounced with average speed and unstressed.

The edit made above was not made by me. My response to it: Madonna and other English speaking people pronounce 'chee-co-NEE', "nee" like "knee". I think the article should either omit that mention or show both pronounciations. Israell (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remove this intro?

So the intro to this article says that Madonna: "is an American recording artist, actress and entrepreneur who slept her way to the top and hasn't gotten any work over the last year or so because she is unable to be sexually active."

I'm not the biggest Madonna fan, but that seems wildly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.136.76 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Madonna's New Album

According to the Toronto Sun, Madonna has begun her first day in the recording studio working on her new album today on July 4th. Can you verify if the source is credible. If it is, it could be used on her new album's article once enough information is complied to warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannago92 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/04/madonna-back-in-studio

Normally, a newspaper would generally be okay. But the problem is that the newspaper article has twitter as its only reference which is not a viable source to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorlack36 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I found another source, this time being CBS News Celebrity Circuit, which also uses Guy Oseary's tweet about Madonna being in studio. The article also cites Rolling Stone in terms of Madonna possibly working with A-Track and David Guetta on her new album. Is the article reliable or not? Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20077160-10391698.html Iwannago92 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation from Madonna's label on with whom she's working. At present all these info fail WP:RECENTISM. And next time you post in a talk page, please raise a new thread below all other old threads and not at the top of the page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Does anyone else take issue with the introduction to the article? In my opinion, it should be more along the lines of the likes of Michael Jackson, Kylie Minogue, etc. It seems to summarize her musical achievements in just a couple of sentences, and yet it dedicates an entire paragraph to smaller achievements that she is not well-known for. Madonna is known first and foremost for her music. 99.121.80.210 (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Song Writing Credits

She wrote very few (if any, as is debatable) of her own songs, across her entire career. This article manages to give the contrary impression and smacks of Warners Bros interference. I would like to see some input from inner industry people here. 203.161.144.190 (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Inner industry people are not reliable sources, but critics, journalists, academics are. They have credited Madonna as a decent songwriter, + BMI and ASCAP references are there. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Madonna wrote the vast majority of her songs... Most songs OR all songs on all her studio albums. Please check her album songwriting credits. Co-writing her songs means Madonna shares ownerships of her songs with one or more writers; those are her own songs as well. Israell (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Singer-songwriter" instead of "recording artist" in the lead...

I vote for "singer-songwriter". A singer-songwriter doesn't have to write all or most of their songs all by themselves. I know that in some cases singers that co-write their songs write all their lyrics... Some of them also compose melodies and other parts of their songs (chords, hooks, basslines, etc.). And no, they don't have to play any instrument... Many singers that only co-write their songs are still labelled "singer-songwriters" in the lead of their Wikipedia articles, so why are Madonna's and Christina Aguilera's articles any different?

As I stated in another section of this talk page, Madonna wrote the vast majority of her songs... Most songs OR all songs on all her studio albums. Please check her album songwriting credits. Co-writing her songs means Madonna shares ownerships of her songs with one or more writers; those are her own songs as well. Israell (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Recording artist incorporates all of these terms as well as being a singer, producer, remixer, arranger, player. So it is the most appropriate term in face of just singer-songwriter. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, to start you off, this page has nothing to do with Aguilera, so drop her off at rehab on the way. Now, as for Madonna, if you would be able to find some reliable sources calling her a singer-songwriter, and recognizing "this", then I would not oppose. Thing is, as an example, critics have suggested in the past that Madonna does not do much with the writing process. I can find the link, but I recall a high profile critic claiming Price to be the real reason COADF succeeded so much, and didn't really credit her with much in that department. So there you go, start with the sources and we'll work from there.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

One question... How much time does any critic spends IN the studio, at home or anywhere else with Madonna and anybody else that works with her? How can they claim or suggest Madonna is not so involved in the writing process of her songs if they're never actually present when the songs are written???

You cited COADF as an example. Who wrote the lyrics? Price? It's a well-known fact, not opinion but fact, Madonna is the one that writes most of her lyrics. Most lyrics of Madonna (5 songs out of 8), most lyrics of Like A Virgin (5 songs out of 9), and basically everything as of the True Blue album.

Her co-writers are mainly involved with the music. Besides a few lyrics in Isaac, Madonna wrote ALL the lyrics found on Confessions On A Dance Floor. Is it intelligent for a critic to claim Price is the real reason COADF was so successful? People like Madonna's songs for her singing and lyrics, the message of her songs as well as the music they hear, not just the music.

Madonna confirmed at the time of her Like A Prayer album she writes her own lyrics and also gets involved in melodies but people can't bring themselves to see her as a "slut and a songwriter", and that they omit the information on the label that states she writes her songs.

Madonna was asked by Regis Philbin who wrote the lyrics found on American Life and Madonna answered: "Me." Regis then told her it must have taken her quite awhile to do that...

Madonna said in one more interview the lyrics she wrote for Hard Candy were more introspective than the lyrics she wrote for COADF. It is a fact, not an opinion, that it is Madonna that comes up with most of her lyrics, and she does sometimes (I can't tell how often) get involved in the musical aspect (melodies and such).

Madonna, by the way, played the guitar on her last 4 world tours as well as her last 4 studio albums (Music, American Life, Confessions On A Dancefloor and Hard Candy) + some keyboards on Like A Prayer and cowbell on Madonna - The First Album... Madonna is a professional musician, instrumentist and guitarist, and labelling her a singer-songwriter is NOT a strech by any mean whatsoever.

I'll come up with any good comments from critics that call her a singer-songwriter that I can find but as I explained, such comments aren't so relevant as those critics are never actually present when the songs are being conceived. How can they tell for sure who wrote more??? It's nothing but a baseless assumption. Israell (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest with you, I don't find writing lyrics to be really that difficult, and certainly don't credit it with branding you a Singer-songwriter. To write a song is to write music, to be able to create melodies. Obviously lyrics mean something, and are very important, but I find the actual melody and chord progression creation to be much more difficult and intriguing. Still, you have not found or provided me with any references...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. To write a song is to write music, to be able to create melodies (a composers' work)... And to write lyrics (an authors' work)! It is part of songwriting too! ASCAP, for instance, in its song registration process, credits composers, authors and composer-authors.

If an artist that only composes is a songwriter, an artist that sings and works as an author (writes lyrics), must be a singer-songwriter even if they don't compose... According to ASCAP, an a composer is a songwriter, so is an author, so is a composer/author... And I've proven Madonna gets involved in the musical aspect of her songwriting too, not just the lyrical part.

Madonna stated that she sometimes gets involved in creation of melodies, and I've shown that she did play the guitar on her last 4 studio albums and played the guitar on her last 4 world tours... Madonna's definitely gotten much more involved in the musical aspect of her songwriting for the last 11 years.

I'll try to come up with references later. In the meantime, you haven't been able to explain how can those critics suggest Madonna doesn't write much when they're never present when the songs are being written... Israell (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to explain. I was making a simple point, that's all. The one who needs explaining, and has homework, is you my friend. Find reliable sources or there isn't anything worth discussing. Madonna's page is FA, highest quality sources are needed for such an addition. You need to prove she's regarded as a singer-songwriter throughout the industry.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can we cease this discussion now? Israel, it was explained to you, that recording artist embodies more meanings, than the literal songwriter-singer. And this was decided in the FAC also seeing the different professions taken by her as an entertainer. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Must all those sources be available online? Not all books and magazine articles are made available online. There are tons of websites (not fansites but various websites) and articles that bill Madonna a singer-songwriter but how many of them are "high quality" enough? Israell (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Legolas, I understand what you're saying but in most people's minds, singer-songwriter is quite superior and prestigious than recording artist, and I don't understand why would Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, P!NK, Mariah Carey, Nelly Furtado, Miley Cyrus and others be called singer-songwriters in the lead of their articles and not Madonna (that does often play the guitar and basically writes all her lyrics). I understand it's a featured article and criteria got stricter. If I can find great sources to back up my point of view, I'll present them here.

That being said, writing both recording artist as well as singer-songwriter in the lead could be an option...Israell (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with Israell here. Madonna is much more than just a recording artist. Not only has she wrote the majority of her own material, she also has been producing it in the recent times. Personally, I don't consider an artist a singer-songwriter just because they write their songs as well, production also should be included with it. For example, Taylor Swift writes all her songs (some with co-write, some with none) and co-produces them as well, and she is labelled as a singer-songwriter. I don't see much of a difference here. I don't necessarily believe the lead should be changed, but I think the beginning could be expanded on a bit more. "Madonna...is an American recording artist, songwriter, actress, producer and entrepreneur" or something of the sort. That may be able to make everyone here happy.

And Nathan, why must you always shade Ms. Aguilera? I do not appreciate comments such as this: "so drop her off at rehab on the way". It makes it look a little bias when you reviewed Bionic for me. ℥^nding·start 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a few answers for you. First off, I do not always shade her, I made a simple remark (not even an insult). Secondly, don't ever think or imply that I would fail an article simple because I dislike them. Half the articles I pass are of music or acts that I hate, hence Taylor Swift, so do not come with those logics. Any other reviewer that visits that old GAN page will attest that it was indeed not ready for the nomination. Its really a shame you feel that way.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is one link. I was told a number of times the Telegraph is a good source for Wikipedia, so here we go (excerpts of Telegraph Madonna biography):

"From material girl to earth mother, Madonna has constantly confounded expectations and kept her fans wanting more. One of the biggest stars of a generation, she is officially the most successful female solo artist. Born on August 16 1958, Madonna is a singer-songwriter, record producer, dancer, actress, documentary maker and author. The third of seven children born to an Italian American family in Michigan, Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone always dreamed of being a star. Her mother died of breast cancer when she was six and she was raised by a strict father, taking dance lessons and becoming a high school cheerleader."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3200303/Madonna-profile.html I'll add more links and sources as I find them. Israell (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This one is from Rolling Stone: "...she is an exemplary songwriter with a gift for hooks and indelible lyrics," http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/madonna/albumguide Israell (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the lead right now that tells readers Madonna DOES write her own songs... Nothing at all suggests it! The infobox does but the lead should immediately tell readers Madonna IS a singer and a songwriter, an artist that does write her own songs, sing her own lyrics, instead of an artist that does not write anything at all and just sings songs completely written by others. Readers must receive such pertinent information in the lead. Israell (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Renowned songwriter Billy Steinberg: "I'm a big Madonna fan," Steinberg says. "I think she's actually very underrated as a songwriter. I happen to know that Madonna often writes songs to tracks that people give her. She's writing the lyric and the melody, which is huge.

"She's a really effective pop singer, too." http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2008/03/indefatigable_madonna_to_be_en.html

And that's what Madonna is currently doing. Her manager Guy Oseary said weeks ago Madonna's been listening to tracks for her next album. Israell (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Madonna's songwriting has always been her most underrated quality. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/confessions-on-a-dance-floor-20051103 Israell (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Israell, it's no need to search sources for claiming Madonna as "singer-songwriter" as Petergriffin suggested above. Artistry section of the article has already given detailed explanation about Madonna songwriting ability. I'm also thinking the same as Israell, not many people believe that term "recording artist" incorporates "songwriter", "composer", etc. And, Wikipedia itself also doesn't have any article to give users explanation about "recording artist". I personally don't have any objection to write "singer-songwriter" as long as we reach consensus here. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in order to reach consensus, I do require the addition of reliable sources. Also, I do agree that recording-artist in no way gives credit to a singer-songwriter, producer or composer, so if true, it should be added. As for the sources you've provided, I'll look into it shortly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

AGREED. Who the hell says that recording artist credit singer-songwriter! Britney Spears is also written as recording artist, but did she write her materials like Madonna did? LOL. Michael Jackson's article has singer-songwriter, Mariah Carey has, Madonna should have also, definetely!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.243.235.247 (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"fancrufty"

Hi, Legolas2186. You've just reverted my edit, leaving this edit summary: "You did the exact same fancrufty thing that was frowned at FAC". I don't understand what you mean. Would you kindly explain? PRRfan (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I will. Unknowingly you revised the lead, which introduced some almost WP:WEASEL words like "She won....", "won critical acclaim..." etc. Point being, in the FAC it was decided that Madonna's film career has been universally panned, point. Hence having the critical acclaim of Evita before the harsher feedback gives a sense of utopic grandeur that she was indeed successful. Its humane that anyone would think so. That's why it would appear fancrufty and I reverted it to the original format which makes it perfectly clear that Madonna was a bad actress and she received zero acclaim, except Evita. Also, Madonna provoked people's buttons, that lead to the popularity of the albums and songs, not all of her earlier work won critical acclaim hence imo, thats a wrong word again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be jumping to conclusions about my motivations, which were about tightening wordy sentences, and certainly not about fandom or "utopic grandeur." Let's discuss, starting with what I hope will be the least contentious edits. 1) "Throughout her career, many..." -> "Many..." The first three words are simply redundant. 2) "...followed it with a series of albums by which she found..." -> "...won..." The previous sentence mentioned Madonna's debut album; it's redundant to mention specifically that she had more. If you believe "won" is too laudatory, I'd be happy to make it "received." 3) "Her career was further enhanced by film appearances that began in 1979..." -> "She began acting in films in 1979..." This is simply cutting out windiness. 4) As for the rest of the paragraph, I see your point, and would be happy to retain the original wording with "mixed commentary" and so forth. PRRfan (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt that I was judging your edits, I was definitely not. I knew it was a good faith edit, just that you were not aware which part of the tweaking was frowned upon at the article's FAC discussion. Its not a big deal, but then I can also see the edits that you want to make would indeed better the article. Please do it as you have suggested here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Legolas; it looks like I took your reply the wrong way, and so I apologize as well. PRRfan (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ciccone pronounciation

Madonna's last name is pronounced chee-kyo-nay in Italian but chee-kyo-nee in English, and we know Madonna herself pronounces it chee-kyo-nee. I heard her pronounce it that way in an interview. There was even a time she spelled it "Cicconi". Should we let readers know about the actual English pronounciation? Israell (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Family

Wow. I came to this article trying to find out how many times she's been married - and apparently you need to read the entire article word for word to figure it out. Any other celeb article mentions this data in the lede, or in the infobos. Check out Sean Penn's infobox for an example. Ditto children. This article just seems like a big, impenetrable fan site devoted to her career. Wouldn't it make sense to have at least a single paragraph devoted to "family" or "relationships" or something similar? 68.144.172.8 (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not a tabloid website to talk about how many times she's married. If you wanna find out that info, Google is there. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. This is an encyclopedia, and in an encyclopedia biography marriages and children are listed. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Binkster, I believe you got my points wrong. I'm not denying that such information shouldn't be there, such info is already present as a part of her biography. What the IP insisted was have this information as part of the lede, which should essentially be a summary of the main aspects of a bio. Her marriage, her relationships and her children hell doesn't come around as the main point do they? That was the main reason its not present there in lead, and included as part of the main bio. I admit I don't know why its not present in the infobox, I have to check whether that parameter was depreciated or something. If not, I will add it back in the infobox. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should start Personal relationships of Madonna, just like Personal relationships of Elvis Presley or Personal relationships of Michael Jackson (GA-class). Her personal life is very notable and has been huge media coverage for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.213.165.34 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

QUEEN OF POP

It's absolutely ridiculous that Queen of Pop is not listed as her title. What do we have to do to get Wikipedia to just correct one simple glaring omission??? This shouldn't even be an argument! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.195.138 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Madonna is the Queen of POP, why is it not written on the opening paragraph, like Aretha Franklin, Michael Jackson, or Elvis Presley. Some other artist might be sometimes called Queen, but that term is the most associated to Madonna. Please ADD!! http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/readers-poll-the-queen-of-pop-20110706 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.45.22 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous consensus has suggested not to use such terms for a featured content. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I thing it would have been good and convenient you showing us that "consensus" (literally here or a link). In any case, then, why don't you erase those terms in those other articles, referred by 182.1.45.22. I see they have not been deleted yet. Perhaps she/he 'll do it, or perhaps myself if nobody else, of course mentioning your reason, Mister Lelogas, and hoping there will not be a reversion. Or perhaps you must do it supporting your own words. 82.211.18.20 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Queen of Pop still missing.....

Pretty much every music magazine, blog and reporter. commonly refers to Madonna as the Queen of Pop. Why is this not listed near her name in this article. I realize I'm not the first fan to report this omission, but it bares repeating. She is synonymous with this title and it is publicly accepted. You would never dismiss calling Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, she is a female equal in every way. Please do this artist the justice her career deserves and correct this!(173.60.195.138 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)).

And it will continue missing. There is consensus not to use that term. As a side fact, there is a big difference with Michael being referred to as the "King of Pop" and Madonna as the "Queen of Pop". Jackson is the only artist with that title. However, several other females are credited with it. As an example, in 2005 CBS had a 100,000 vote poll on who was the "modern day queen of pop" and Mariah Carey won by 20,000 votes. Now, that aside, I personally don't think Carey has anything to do with that, her main music hasn't even been pop for 10 years. But just as a point, the title is very much argued in between several females.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus, as with several other female who have been attributed to the term, it is listed in the legacy section of the article - which is a better place for it. Nicknames really aren't essential for the lead of any article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd sure like to know what "consensus" this is in order to instil such utter arrogance in the creators of this site. The debates of this title are hardly legitimate. Just one more reason why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously by hardly anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.213.121 (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New album

She just announced that her new album would be released in the spring here is my source http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=667738&gt1=28102 I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.164.105 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A own article for the new album will be great. Some infos are released. Single Feb/March 2012, Album in the spring, working together with William Orbit. Production in NYC & London etc... 79.214.147.76 (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't know any tracks yet, nor does that source look appropriate for an FA. Have patience until a first single is unveiled or something. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

About 'Legacy' section

I think this whole section is just full of explanation about her behaviour in shocking/manipulating public or how great Madonna as businesswoman, just take a look to that bunch of last paragraph. It lacks of description about Madonna's musical impact or "real" influence on other people. This is one of interesting analysis I found about Madonna influence in music world, please someone add this to this protected page. Thank you http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26164523/ns/today-entertainment/t/has-madonna-surpassed-beatles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.11.61.142 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I will try to incorporate it further. Her influence on music and other artists are already present, but can be emphasized nonetheless. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention...

Of her new album or tour in the article? Just curious. There's plenty of reliable sources confirming both next year. — Status {^talk_contribs  01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It was there. Probably removed. I will add it and thanks Zach for pointing this out. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New profile image

I have found a free image of Madonna from the Toronto W.E. premiere. Its uploaded here. What do you think? I believe it is of sufficient resolution to change the main profile pic. Four years is a little too much and Madonna changes image constantly. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a lovely photo, but the other people are a distraction. I don't think the infobox is the right place. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.150.25.114, 27 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone (Italian pronunciation: [tʃik̚ˈkoːne] chee-CO-nay); August 16, 1958) is an American singer-songwriter, actress, film maker, dancer and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan, she moved to New York City in 1977 to pursue a career in modern dance. After performing in the music groups Breakfast Club and Emmy, she released her debut album in 1983. She followed it with a series of albums by which she found immense popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV. Throughout her career, many of her songs have hit number one on the record charts, including "Like a Virgin", "Papa Don't Preach", "Like a Prayer", "Vogue", "Frozen", "Music", "Hung Up", and "4 Minutes". Critics have praised Madonna for her diverse musical productions while at the same time serving as a lightning rod for religious controversy.

68.150.25.114 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What change are you suggesting - and why? And, what is the reliable source?  Chzz  ►  04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing Chzz, just another bullshit sock of ElPilotoDi (talk · contribs). — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Change of photo in infobox?

I think we are due an update on the photo in the infobox. Its from over 3 years ago and is not current. Can I maybe suggest the one being used in the W.E section of this page from the Toronto International Film Festival or another current one which has a profile shot of Madonna. What do you think? JWAD ^{Communicate|Nicely} 09:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no need for changing the photo. Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

please change the photo, its 4 years old, it's a horrible picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.163.99 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't represent her well at all. She's done a lot since then. What reason is there for NOT changing it??? Why are people on Wikipedia so stubborn and lazy? Must be ran by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.213.121 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually love the picture. But it's true a refreshment could be used as this one has been up for awhile. Israell (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

The main photo for the wiki page of Madonna NEEDS TO BE CHANGED NOW. A recent photo of her at the Venice film festival would be perfect. Every time I go on Madonna's wiki page (which is often), i'm always disturbed by seeing that no one cares enough to CHANGE IT.

Thegirlieshow (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done. There is no requirement for photos to change in an encyclopedia article. The photo I saw of her at the Venice festival is flawed by the prominent presence of two other folks. Binksternet (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Support for Gypsies - booed off stage

Some coverage of her stance on Gypsies and Roma, leading to her being booed in Hungary would be worthy of inclusion. 80.42.225.105 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)two80.42.225.105 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian pronunciation of her name?

That is totally irrelevant. She's from Michigan, not Italy. Varlaam (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation given even uses the Italian double consonant! That's hilarious.
We (almost) never use that in English, and we certainly do not here. Varlaam (talk)

That's not a problem. Wherever she comes from, "Ciccone" is still an Italian surname and should be pronounced in the way Italian people say. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bluesatellite is correct. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't full agree that "it should be pronounced in the way Italian people say". Madonna herself pronounces: "Chee-ko-nee". She pronounces "NEE", not "NAY". Just like she prounounces: "Ma-Don-Na", the English way instead of: "Ma-Do-Nna", the Italian way.

Considering this, the lead could also include the English pronounciation of her name, the one she and any other English-speaking person actually use. Israell (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I went to school with Madonna and her brother Chris at Rochester Adams High School, and the family pronounced their surname "sick-CONE." Definitely "Chris 'sick-CONE'". I realize people can change how they pronounce their surname. Scottknitter (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Madonna's next album will be handled and released through Universal, not Live Nation

I think her "Labels" should reflect this information.link 76.98.223.32 (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice info. But, shouldn't we wait confirmation from Madonna's side? Bluesatellite (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty certain that Madonna's next album will be distributed by Interscope Records in the US and by Polydor Records in the rest of the world. It will most likely be officially announced very soon, but until then, it shouldn't be posted in the actual article.--MsigDK (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaked Single, "Give Me All Your Love"

According to the December issue of Harper's Bazaar, Madonna is reportedly very upset about the leak of new single "Give Me All Your Love," which sounds like a 60's pop-mash between Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" and Madonna's own "Beautiful Stranger." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.95.207 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

passé

"Madonna, seen here on The Virgin Tour, had a bright, girlish vocal timbre that became passé in her later works." Somebody needs to look up the word "passé" and then re-write this to say what they really mean. GeneCallahan (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about her Truth or Dare perfume line that was officially announced?

It's an entire series of products too. A press release was sent out last week. 76.98.223.32 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Will add it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Little addition in the legacy section

Hello., Just like to add a sentence or two on how Madonna is really popular in asian music especially in Kpop, Since one Kpop group called Secret has a song called (Guess what?) "Madonna". And is it ok to add pictures of Madonna in the Madonna(Secret song)article? I know its kinda silly since Madonna has also a song called Secret. anyways many thanks. Mazic (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think having just a song named Madonna really exemplifies the fact that she is popular is K-pop. And the article on "Secret" already has pictures of Madonna. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I oppose to your opinion, she's the queen of pop for goodness sake, I bet shes popular in a first world country. But the songs lyrics is like "this(with english translations)" "Kang Jiwon and Kim Kibum, the composers who wrote "Madonna" highlighted that the inspiration behind the song is about living with confidence by becoming an icon in this generation, like the American singer Madonna." On the pictures thing, Im starting to create a page about this song and use Madonna's picture, in the background section. 110.55.151.23 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen of Pop

How can this page not title her with the status Queen of Pop??? I'm aware there's a wiki page that lists other artist under this title, but none of those are legitimate. it makes no sense not to put it in her page. How can hundreds of articles over the passed decade plus calling her this not warrant ANY mention? No other artist is called this on any regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.213.121 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Its in the Legacy section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Queen of Pop" title needs to be in her introduction. She known worldwide as the Queen of Pop. Michael Jackson has "King of Pop" in his introduction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.249.21 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to add dates of photo captions

Would someone please add dates when each the photos were taken to all of the captions? It would be nice improvement to see them up-front rather than having to click on most of them to find out. Thanks ! Charvex (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sticky And Sweet tour

Madonna's Sticky And Sweet world tour is not the biggest tour by a solo artist, Michael Jackson's HIStory world tour is the biggest tour by a solo artist he entertained over 4.5 million fans while Madonna's reach 3.5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADKIc3mAnX (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It goes by gross. Madonna's tour made almost four times his. — Status {^talk_contribs 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

And I would love to see some reliable receipts please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pushing the boundaries"

Is there any way to make that phrase less vague in the first paragraph, which currently has a sentence that begins "She followed it with a series of albums that attained immense popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos"? Leonxlin (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the content present in the article body. But I'm open to any suggestion you have regarding the line. So feel free to post here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Business ventures

I was wondering what people thought of having a Business ventures or Entrepreneur section to the article? Madonna's record deals - Sire, Maverick, Maverick vs Time Warner/WMG, Live Nation, Semtex Films, work for H&M, Max Factor, D&G sunglasses, Material Girl clothing, Truth or Dare by Madonna, Vita Coco, Pepsi, Pioneer etc. I think this would be a good idea as she is listed in her infobox as "entrepreneur" and Forbes magazine in their October 1, 1990 edition had her on the front cover with the quote "America's Smartest Business Woman?" as she had earned $125 million USD from 1985–1990. She has also been included in numerous Forbes lists. What does everyone think? 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 20:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a nice idea. LEmme see what I can come up with. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Masterpiece

Hello,

I recently learnt that Masterpiece was nominated for a Golden Globe. See: 69th Golden Globe Awards. Pls add this info. Thx, --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been added to the main film article, W.E., we need to see if its that important to be added here or not. Unless it ends up winning. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011

"Celebration" needs to be removed from her Discography. It is a Compilation/Greatest Hits and was NOT a new Studio album. If Celebration is going to be kept on that list, then her other Compilation/Greatest Hits Albums need to be added.. "Immaculate Collection", etc

Thegirlieshow (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP was right, and it has been removed also. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal name?

What is her legal name? Is it just "Madonna"? Some people seem to claim it is.. could someone please add a section about her name, when (and if) she changed it, what it legally is, and any other disputed facts please? At the moment the article doesn't appear to address any of these issues.. thanks, 137.82.175.12 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

New album name "M.D.N.A." as a Kabbalah tetragrammaton

The new album title "M.D.N.A." is a tetragrammaton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.80.157 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Care to provide a source for this wonderful original research? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, That's opinion and not a fact, she has already confirmed it means "Madonna" and it is a pseudo-blend of her name. She has not mentioned anything regarding Religion, Judaism nor Kabbalah. If it was a tetragram it would be "M.D.N.N." 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "tetragram" as you said, it's a tetragrammaton (at least read the article!). It's as tetragrammaton as well as MLVC (her real name Madonna Louisa Veronica Cicconne). Madonna is just obssessed with occult Kabbalah studies, including tetragrammatons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.9.33 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The following comment was also included on Talk:M.D.N.A.#M.D.N.A._is_a_tetragrammaton, please continue the discussion on that page as the Madonna main page is not appropriate as we are discussing an element of the album release:

Again, nonsense and completely your opinion. I wish we all knew Madonna as personally as you as you seemed to be very knowledgeable of her being "obsessed with occult Kabbalah studies" (your comment on the album talk page) which itself is very ignorant. For your information MLVC is an acronym of Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, not a tetragrammaton. Also for your information a "tetragram" is another name for tetragrammaton, so I suggest you get your information correct and do some reading yourself. Madonna herself has confirmed that MDNA stands for "Madonna" and she has not mentioned anything about it being a tetragrammaton and just because she studies Kabbalah does not meaning it has any hidden meaning. She has already said that she likes the triple entendre the name suggests but she has officially confirmed that it means is all but her forename. I hope this clears things up. 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

NAME: MADONNA LOUISE VERONICA CICCONE

175.38.198.151 (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify what you want to change with a reliable source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New album title (slight change)

madonna.com has updated the reference [1] and the album title is now called simply MDNA with no points inbetween (before it was written as M.D.N.A.) Its the same for "Give Me All Your Luvin" (the original madonna.com link stated the single as "Gimme All Your Luvin") - they have updated both links with their new titles. Even Madonna's official youtube account has released an MDNA Teaser video here [2] 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 20:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Infobox picture

I believe a new more recent infobox picture should be uploaded (the current one is from almost 4 years ago). --189.241.143.62 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have a high-quality free image of her face we can change it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found some great pictures of her from 2011-2012 in Flickr. I've contacted the owners but so far none of them have answered back :( I'll try contacting them again--148.241.97.247 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

M.D.N.A. is the title of Album 12

From Madonna's Facebook feed: "Madonna just officially announced the name of her upcoming studio album, which is 'M.D.N.A'!" 66.26.95.207 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have any news sources confirmed this? Please provide links. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the confirmation: https://www.facebook.com/madonna/posts/10150587188209402 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.216.46 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

News sources, not facebook updates. Like reliable sources, such as highly reputable websites. Thank you and please remember in the future. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Why did I reply. ~~

she's a old plagiarist of the devil!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.34.254.251 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a moot point now, but from the wiki guidelines: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. [emphasis mine]. A tweet or post by the subject announcing the title of a work would be an appropriate source. 108.85.122.100 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Partial source audit

Given ongoing concerns about use of sources by User:Legolas2186, who nominated this article for FA status, I have started spot-checking sources for this article. I have found an alarming number of issues: 10 in the first 32 refs checked. The high rate of problems indicates a complete work-over is going to be needed if this is to maintain Featured Article status. This is a high-visibility BLP, so this should be considered an urgent matter.

Note: I do not believe I found any instances of deliberate fabrication of information about the subject. Most of these statements are probably accurate, but are not verifiable because the sources that been cited have nothing to do with the text. Very strange.

Ref 3, close paraphrasing:

• Article text: "Madonna was nicknamed 'Little Nonni' to distinguish her from her mother."
• Source text: "They nickname her "Little Nonni" to distinguish her from her mother."

Ref 4(b), fails verification:

• Article text: "Her mother died of breast cancer at the age of 30 in 1963."
• Source text: "In December 1963, Mrs. Ciccone died of breast cancer at the age of 31..."

Ref 4(c), fails verification:

• Article text: "Madonna later attended Rochester Adams High School, and was a straight-A student and a member of the cheerleading squad."
• Source text: Does not mention her being a "straight-A student".
  • Multiple reliable sources dating from before Wikipedia confirm straight As: "Madonna was a cheerleader and straight-A student", "she became a straight-A student in an attempt to win her father's approval", "I was a straight-A student, and they all hated me for it", "She got straight As", and "She was a very goal-oriented student and always brought home straight A's on her report card." Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ref 4(d), fails verification:

• Article text: "However, she was allowed to retain her fee of five million dollars."
• Source text: Does not mention the fee at all.

Ref 8, fails verification:

• Article text: "Her father married the family's housekeeper Joan Gustafson, and they had two children: Jennifer and Mario Ciccone."
• Source text: Does not mention Jennifer and Mario.

Ref 20, fails verification:

• Article text: "Her first documentary film Truth or Dare (known as In Bed with Madonna outside North America) was released in mid-1991. The documentary chronicled her Blond Ambition World Tour and provided glimpses into her personal life."
• Source text: Does not mention alternate title or anything about "glimpses into her personal life".

Ref 20, incorrect/fails verification:

• Article text: "Madonna signed a singles deal with Sire, a label belonging to Warner Bros. Records."
• Source text: Does not mention who the label belongs to, and the article text is correct anyway. The label belongs to Warner Music Group.

Did it in 1982? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ref 22(a), fails verification:

• Article text: "Her debut single, "Everybody", was released on October 6, 1982, and became a dance hit."
• Source text: Does not mention the single "Everybody" at all.

Ref 32(a), fails verification:

• Article text: "Madonna further came under fire when she performed the song at the first MTV Video Music Awards where she appeared on stage atop a giant wedding cake, wearing a wedding dress and bridal veil, adorned with her characteristic "Boy Toy" belt buckle. The performance is noted by scholars and by MTV as an iconic performance in MTV history."
• Source text: No mention of some details (such as belt buckle) or "noted by scholars". Not at all sure what that's referring to.

Ref 32(b), misapplied/redundant.

More surely to come. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is important work; thanks for starting on it. The article is high traffic and BLP, so we should get it right! Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on this version of the article.

• Bronson 2002 (#56, #79, & #118) is undefined, although it may be Bronson 2003 in Further reading.
• Michael 2004 (#95, #96, & #107) is also undefined, but may be seeking St. Michael 2004.
• Taraborrelli 2003 (#136) is another undefined source, that may be intended to be Taraborrelli 2002.

Alarbus (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Refs 21 and 22 (in the current version) are probably switched. Ref 21 does mention "Everybody", with a release date of April 24, 1982, which was the date given in the article though much of its history, and ref 22 is more focused on the recording contract. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Laserbrain, thanks for taking the lead on this. Is there anyone here who is interested in working on the article to make sure that all of the sources cover all of the proper information? If not, this article needs to go up for FAR. I can do the paperwork of a FAR, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't anyone out there that is planning to work this article up to featured quality. Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• So far, this thread is effectively the FAR. We can formalize it or not but I think we have a motivated group. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Changed my mind: A formal FAR will leave a more specific track for later editors to follow. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• As Gimmetoo noted above, many of these could be easy fixes. Where verification is failed, another ref could almost certainly be moved in that verifies the text. I have yet to find anything untrue in the article—it's just that the wrong source is cited. I will help fix the article as I have time. --Laser brain (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added a new reference early in the article so it will throw off the numbering of later cites as discussed here. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A good thing would be to note down which refs are good in that they don't paraphrase and say what the source says they say. it'd be a great help to get a sense of the proportion of good to problematic footnotes here. Sorry I can't do more myself as I am tidying up some other things. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

"career and personal life" should be separated into two sections as most other wiki biographies are. 108.85.122.100 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a separation may be convenient for some people but for others it would make for a jerky chronology while needlessly separating personal and career developments that are aligned or parallel. I think the chronological method works okay here. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Title

Don't know if this has been discussed before, but why is this article titled Madonna (entertainer)? Surely it should be Madonna (singer) in line with other singers. Yes, she has done some acting, but she rose to fame as a singer and continues to be first and foremost known as a singer. Entertainer makes her sound like a circus performer or children's entertainer. It's very non-specific.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

She's done more than some acting. Granted she's a better singer, but for someone with as much acting experience as she, the article has to reflect both. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Better "zooming" lead

Hi,

Recently I've made some editing of the lead, but it was reverted by user:Bluesatellite citing that "Huge change for a FA-class article should be discussed first". So I go here. =}

My vision: I like the first paragraph being another "nutshell layer". The first layer is (of course) the first sentence, and the third layer for me is the lead as a whole (the next layers being sections and - in a way - "sub"articles, if the subject is too broad). I like the conception of "zooming into the subject" to be more coherent, that's why I try to make first paragraph autonomous as a second layer, and so I would like to have here all the main achievements, and not the artist's introduction to the career. The lead for me doesn't even have to be chronological overview, it's better when its paragraphs rather concentrate on most important things and glue them into logical (as a contrast of chronological) "clusters". kocio (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you possibly post your proposed lead here, so we can easily see what you are suggesting? --Laser brain (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This link (which was inserted into my first sentence) gets you to the version I made. You can also check the difference. kocio (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your version is much better than what is there now. It places more emphasis on what is most important about the subject. Maybe Bluesatellite can explain why they disagree. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Linked lead section is better than current. It quickly establishes the importance of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I changed the lead once more since it doesn't look like controversial. Bluesatellite was informed about it, was active in the time of the discussion, and didn't make a single comment here, so I guess he just wanted such a change not to go unnoticed, not to object to merits of the change. I don't consider it a "huge" change nevertheless, but now I think everybody should be happy. ;-} kocio (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation

Pronunciation of her last name should be checked. Someone gave it a faux-Italian transcription. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No word about her affinity to the Cabala and the Occult

This woman presents her faith in the occult powers openly and she says openly that she is a student of the Cabala. But no word about it here in Wikipedia. Someone should insert it. (Now we are more than 10 people observing the evident censorship behavior of this mass media technology ... go on, delete this line). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.55.194.186 (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is spelled "Kabbalah". Secondly, it is not an occult practice, but "mystical judaism" (something that many rabis are encouraged to practice). The article actually DOES talk about her involvement with Kabbalah after the birth of her daughter, Lourdes. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Porn past =

I guess Obama-loving Kool-Aid-drinking Wikipedia editors only like the truth of THEIR choosing. Madonna made at least one porn movie back in 1979. Yet no Wikipedia editor seems to be interested. Madonna of course managed to erase that part of her past and Wikipedia is quite happy with half-truths. No wonder they're Al Gore fans. Ready for more Hope and Change, you stupid gullible peons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.54.205 (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you film your referring to is A Certain Sacrifice which was filmed in 1979 and released in 1985 at the height of Madonna's fame. This film is included in her filmography page on this site. It is not a "porn" film, but an independent, experimental film which includes scenes of nudity, rape and murder. Please get your facts correct before coming out with weird insinuations and racist comments. Pathetic. 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

weird and pathetic, yes. racist? --96.20.251.10 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Obama-loving Kool-Aid-drinking" is not racist to you? Thats weird! 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"kool-aid drinkers" is a reference to blindly following ideas. It stems from the Jonestown incident. While there is also a stereotype about black liking kool-aid (in a literal, rather than metaphorical way), the guys use of the term doesn't seem to refer to that. I've got to rule on the side of "wrong, maybe crazy, but not racist." 108.85.122.100 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This immature behavior does not belong on wikipedia. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Her full name

Madonna's full name is Madonna Esther Louise Ciccone, isn't it? Naamatt2 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong. Her full birth name is Madonna Louise Ciccone. Her confirmation name was Veronica and she was then know as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone. She took the name Esther from her teachings with Kabbalah, but it is not an official name, only used through her studies. It has never been added to her name. jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Article Picture

Can this picture be used as the main article picture? http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/552812_433137470033101_174564172557100_1933069_172941613_n.jpg Is it public domain? I don't know how to figure out if it is. Israell (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless the license is explicitly stated, assume it's copyrighted. Unfortunately, we could not use this picture. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Transvestite

can you add a section about Madonna transvestite claims because of this picture http://www.gossipcop.com/wp-content/uploads/Madonna-Muscles1-241x300.jpg and about Piers Morgan banning her because of her man arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.246 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comments don't even merit a response. Yawn. jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 12:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2012

Hi

In this section: Artistry\Musical Style

Could this:

As she explained, "I sing about shattering an image that you have of somebody, but I also sing about loving someone that wish you didn’t love. Because you know that you’re doomed, but you can’t stop yourself."

Be changed to this:

As she explained, "I sing about shattering an image that you have of somebody, but I also sing about loving someone that [you] wish you didn’t love. Because you know that you’re doomed, but you can’t stop yourself."

Thanks Flymat (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added the editorial [you] to the quote. Thanks for the note!

My bigger problem with that quote is that I cannot be sure it is accurately transcribed by the fansite allaboutmadonna.com. At this webpage, the allaboutmadonna people put up a copyrighted article that was printed in The Face in August 2000. The citation that was in the article gives incorrect volume and issue numbers, and so I cannot trust it very far. The correct volume and issue are 3 and 43, as seen here and here. In this series of edits, Legolas2186 added the quote, referencing The Face but fabricating a volume and issue number of 32 and 8, not the correct 3 and 43. This fabrication makes me suspect that the page number and author, "Johny Davies", are incorrect as well. I have deleted the page number and the author from the citation. Anyone who has a physical copy of this magazine issue is welcome to thumb through it and find out the pages and author. Also, is the article title simply "It's My Love-You-But-F**k-You Record!" or is it preceded by "Madonna" as in "Madonna: 'It's My Love-You-But-F**k-You Record!'"? An examination of the cover image makes me think maybe the latter is the case. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dancer and Choreographer

The opening paragraph makes no mention of Madonna being a DANCER or CHOREOGRAPHER. Would you please add these two defining characteristics/qualifications there? Considering that she started her entertainment career as a DANCER, she considers herself a dancer first, she dances in all her videos, performances and concerts and that she CHOREOGRAPHS much of her work as well as contributing to others and influencing many contemporary and subsequent performers, and the culture at large (in style, moves, parodies, imitators, satires, copycats, etc) I think these should even be mentioned first and second (or maybe second and third, after singer).  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.215.79 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Songwriting credits.

Why is she credited under the name "Madonna" for songwriting credits? Aren't these all supposed to be by last name? DanielDPeterson + talk 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Charity and Controversy

I think that a section should be made for Madonna's charity work over the years. with her starting her nonprofit organization for African children and adoptions. Also a section should DEFINITELY be made for her controversy over the years considering she is the most controversial entertainer to ever live. Michael Jackson being a very close second. But unlike him, Madonna has had controversy since her very beginning with people saying she was a one hit-wonder and that she sounded like Minnie mouse on helium to her following album when she sang Like A Virgin which in itself attracted a great amount of controversy. Also on the same album, the song Dress You Up received a very large amount of controversy from parents for its strong innuendo. Then of course came her scandal from the 10 year old nude photos. Then the uproar regarding the song Pap Don't Preach and its pro-life lyrics but to some promoting teen pregnancy. Then the Pepsi commercial fiasco regarding the Like A Prayer innuendo and themes. And that's just the 80's alone so I would not be surprised if an entire page was able to be filled with the amount of controversy she has received/is receiving. Not to mention the fact that people have literally debated for years about her with the "Madonna Studies" and all.(98.181.61.49 (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

A controversy section would place those events out of the context of her life and career and give them too much of a spotlight, which doesn't fit with WP:NPOV. The article includes her controversies over the years within the article's "Life and career" section, which helps create a representative survey of the relevant literature that represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. As for charity work over the years, feel free to edit the "Life and career" section with her charity work over the years if it seems to fit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The controvery section was there some times ago, but was completely removed and rewrote to the 'life and career' section. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I am assuming that this rule only applies to people as i have seen a controversy section on many other pages. I understand the neutral point of view part but I feel that it would only portray her negatively if you didn't show her reasons for doing things, thereby balancing out the negative and positive. For instance, with the nude picture scandal, she said that she felt embarrassed and humiliated and that her fans would all turn their backs on her because of the pictures. But she felt that the best way to handle it was to pretend like it was insignificant. While the former is her true feelings for the incident, the latter is the point of view that is shown in the 'Life and Career' section (which may portray Madonna in a negative way rather than how she truly felt). Of course the section would portray her in a negative way if the only things that were shown were insulting quotes instead of the views of both sides. Not only that, if these are true events why should it matter? Its not like you are giving your own opinion on the matter. You would just be stating Madonna's actions over the years and the reaction/impact that they had on the world. It would not be negatively portraying her unless opinions were stated by the user writing and/or the opinions of just Madonna or her critics rather than them both. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

"Controversy" sections are not mandatory. If they exist in another articles, that is irrelevant here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would actually read, I said that I was assuming. I never said that since theres a controversy section on other pages that there should be one here. Secondly, you are only looking at one sentence from the entire paragraph so I'm pretty sure that you didnt pay attention to too much of any of it including the sentence that you read. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

I see your point about balancing out the negative and positive, but Wikipedia merely tries to achieve proportionate views rather than balance out the views already in reliable sources. A good Wikipedia article will reflect the imbalance in any negative and positive imbalance in the relevant literature. Reliable sources don't normally divide their writing to include a controversy section, so a Wikipedia article having a controversy section wouldn't reflect what's out in the representative literature. Also, truth or true events isn't one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). With the nude picture scandal, the article now notes, "The publication of the photos caused a media uproar, but Madonna remained defiant and unapologetic. The photographs were ultimately sold for up to $100,000. She referred to the whole experience at the 1985 outdoor Live Aid charity concert saying that she would not take her jacket off because "[the media] might hold it against me ten years from now."" If you think more info is needed to better reflect that event in the article, please add to it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Madonna article once had a "criticism" section some felt was needed and it was removed some time ago for the same reasons some have just mentionned. It's better to discuss such things in the body of the whole article rather than in one specific section. Israell (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

***Respect*** of Consensus Reached

I now notice something... Formal (votes) or informal (no votes, just discussion) consensus is sometimes reached in order to settle a dispute or an edit war regarding statements included in the article, especially its lead.

The problem is that editors respect the consensus that is reached but weeks or months later, an editor simply decides to override the decision made and replaces it with another statement or simply deletes it without using this 'Talk' page first...

What's the point of debating here and reaching consensus if it can be overridden at any moment by any editor??? Makes no sense and it's a waste of time.

We've made it a point the term recording artist does not credit a songwriter and Madonna has co-written the vast majority of her material, especially when it comes to lyrics, and formal consensus was reached. It should also be noted that Madonna co-produced the majority the songs featured on her studio albums (as of 'True Blue'). I've just reverted that edit and the lead now reads "singer, songwriter".

Editors should discuss any major change in the lead here first. What do you think? Israell (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo

On the article for one of the most famous people in the world, one of the most used websites in the world is using as its principle photograph a four-years old, out of date, rather unattractive, image. There's got to be better, more recent Madonna photos in the public domain than that. I'm not a wiki contributer, just a casual reader, but coming at this from a new angle may highlight things that others who are here all the time overlook. Could one of you people please change that photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.66 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Public domain photos of famous people, especially ridiculously famous people like Madonna are nearly impossible to come by. Any clear, attractive photograph of a celebrity is usually by a paid photographer who has legal rights to the photo. These are all the freely licensed photos wikipedia currently has access to. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then why not show a public photo of Madonna in her prime? I mean im sure that would be much easier to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.61.49 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the subject is still living, its policy to use the most current (and more importantly - freely licensed) photo available that clearly shows the individuals face (not obstructed by objects, hats, glasses, etc). The attractiveness of the photo is a luxury, not a valid consideration when there are limited resources. Its sucks, but that's the way the ball bonces when it comes to contributing to a free encyclopedia. As I stated above This link shows all the freely licensed photos wikipedia currently has access to. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I really do not care about the attractiveness of the photo. I just care about accuracy. She looks nothing like this anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.61.49 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the fair use rules. Just because she is "one of the most famous people in the world" we are not going to include a copyrighted image despicting a living person. Unless you can provide a "PD" picture of her, we cannpt do something. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What about using the MDNA album cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.67 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Album covers are protected by copyright. They can only be used under fair use for their own individual articles, not to illustrate the likeness of a living person. Otherwise its deleted. Unless you personally find Madonna and take a picture of her (or know someone who has) and upload it yourself, we're probably not going to get a new PD picture of her for a while. Some professional photographers do upload their own photos but don't expect a full gallery to pop up overnight. Its just not going to happen. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A 2012 photo was uploaded on Commons]. 11Jorn ^(talk) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We can use the photo after its OTRS permission confirmed. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The photo is from madonnarama.com, which notes that it is a fansite and that "All logos, trademarks and pictures are property of their respective owners."[3] Since madonnarama.com isn't the copyright holder of the uploaded photo, receiving permission from madonnarama.com to upload the photo of Madonna to commons still would not be enought to use the photo in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Who says madonnarama.com isn't the copyright holder of that photo? The statement in its main page doesn't automatically mean that all photos posted on the fansite aren't their own work. As long as the photo is not proven to be copyright violation, we can replace with the current infobox photo. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposed use of the photo under a "innocent until proven guilty" rationale. Even a casual glance at the photo and you can tell it was taken by a professional photographer with special access to the VIP area where she & other celebrities intentionally pose for publicity photos. This photo is an obvious copyright violation and should not be used in any Wikipedia article. Senator2029 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that rationale. While I may not be a "professional photographer" I was indeed given "special access" to take the lead photo that has been up since 2008, and frankly in my opinion (I'm biased) it is a good photo. It's not some cameraphone shot from a fan. I was put in the A-pen of photographers at the Tribeca festival, shooting next to professionals, to capture that image and its derivatives. So to say that the proposed update is verboten because it "looks professional" is flawed if the comparison is to mine. As a Madonna fan, I agree my photo isn't my favorite "look" she has done in recent years and it would be great to get a new shot - I love her new look, more than the I Am Because We Are photo shoot. But I don't think it's an unflattering photo of her. It would be optimal to get a more recent shot. But I don't think my photo looks less professional (from at the moment it was taken) than the one proposed to be used - and you can google image search and compare my shot of her at this event, compare it to "professional photographer" shots, to come up with your own opinion. --David Shankbone 04:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

David, I wouldn't worry. Obviously, Senator2029 was unprepared for a photo from a connected A-list Wikipedian. I think your photo is the best we have for the purpose, and it should stay. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to say to David I actually think the current photo is quite fine, but I think editors unfamiliar with policy think we can just whip up a sexy/dramatic/glamor shot from a photo shoot anytime we please. Wikipedia is very, very lucky to have an editor like you who is also a photographer. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not the fact that its a slightly unattractive photo, but she looks absolutely nothing like this now. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC))