Jump to content

Talk:Madonna/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Random break in legacy section

Bookkeeper has just posted some very interesting sources on my talk page. Here's his post in full:

I've been browsing google books and I came across Understanding Popular Music By Roy Shuker. The first paragraph on page 128 touches on the difference between talent and calculated manufacturing and mentions this is a commonly held criticism. Similarly Battleground: women, gender and sexuality‎ - Page 321 talks about Madonna using sex to exploit producers in order to become successful and points to a rolling stone article calling her an "unqualified" success. The last paragraph on page 18 and on to page 19 of Music, space and place: popular music and cultural identity talks about Madonna and her success based on her production teams. There is also a quote in Popular Music: The rock era By Simon Frith on page 403 that shoots squarely at Madonna. These are the types of critiques I'm looking for. User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult07:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some excellent stuff in there. In particular we can add more to the Madonna reinventing herself section; I was personally unhappy at only having one source of that. Let's all have a nose around and see what we can find. I still think that the specific nature of the resentment expressed by other artists should be reflected in the text; if Joni and Jacko say much the same thing, it seems notable.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's some really good stuff in those books which we can surely use in the Legacy section to balance it out. Let's create a draft of it in Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/Legacy before moving it to the main article. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some google scholar searches:

I'll add more as I find them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Highschool Found

I was messing around with sitesearch on one of those classmates directories, and found here catholic school:

Hallows, she graduated in 1976, it says.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.17.33 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


records sold worldwide.

OK, that 200 million albums worldwide is well dated! she sold way more than that! I summed up that the total studio albums sold + compilations is 200 million. But what about the singles? It's gotta at least 100 million, which brings up a total of 300 mil. Don't ask me for sources, I don't know where to find them, all I'm saying is that the sources used for the 200 mil are dated! We need newer ones.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

HER single, "You must love me" ?

The Academy Award went to Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice (I believe) for adding the song to the movie. It was NOT a Madonna single. She merely performed it at the Academy Awards. She was not nominated for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.111.142 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that Madonna was nominated for an award but it only mentions that the song won the academy award. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the IP is right. Academy Awards and Golden Globes for Best Original Song are only given to the songwriters, not the performers. Mentioning this gives Madonna undue credit. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. However, I believe the line is not saying that Madonna won an awrad or was nominated. It simply states that the song went on to win the award. "You must Love Me" was most definitely a Madonna single. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Which I also agree too, however, the very nature of the award is especially created - solely - for the writers, not the performer. It is undue weight to mention the awards, as Madonna - solely as performer - has nothing to do with them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohh k. I get what you meant. I'll remove the line. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


You Must Love Me IS a Madonna single; her likeness and name DO appear on the CD single. Sooner Or Later is not a Madonna single but a Madonna song that featured on her I'm Breathless soundtrack album.

Both songs earned their writers Academy Awards. The article does mention the Sooner Or Later win. It doesn't make sense not to inform readers of the You Must Love Me win. Readers won't necessarily take the time to read the individual Sooner Or Later and You Must Love Me articles and they deserve to have that important information.

The article currently says: "It also featured her eighth US number-one single, "Vogue",[1] and her first Academy Award-winning song "Sooner or Later".[2]

The Madonna article should just say: "It also featured her eighth US number-one single, "Vogue",[3] and "Sooner or Later", a song that earned Stephen Sondheim an Academy Award for Best Original Song in 1991."[4]

The article currently says: "The soundtrack album contained three of her singles including "You Must Love Me" and Don't Cry For Me Argentina".

It should say: "The soundtrack album contained three of her singles including "You Must Love Me", song that earned Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice an Academy Award in 1997 and Don't Cry For Me Argentina".

I'm tempted to make the changes but I fear an edit war... I thought no one owns an article here. But it seems only a few are allowed to make changes. Do I have the authority to make changes or must the changes be made by someone else?

Israell (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. So long as it is made clear Madonna herself did not earn the awards. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Madonna and gypsys

In Romania, Madonna was booed over a speech about gypsys: http://omg.yahoo.com/news/madonna-booed-in-bucharest-for-defending-gypsies/26947?nc

Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.114.235 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate for the Tour article. Madonna has been facing and making controversial comments forever, this is not an exception. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Queen of Pop"

There should be something in the introduction saying that Madonna is the "Queen of Pop" with sources and stuff, cause she is! If Michael, Elvis, or Tina get their honorific titles in their introductions, Madonna should have hers too! There may be others claiming other artists are the Queen of Pop, but Madonna is the true Queen of Pop by far more sources and career achievements. Even type "queen of pop" in google or other search engines and links for Madonna will out number other artists! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trytry66 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree! Madonna is still referred to as the Queen of Pop on a very regular basis by the media and her fan base. I don't understand why that title's inclusion has always been such an issue here. The Sticky & Sweet Tour achievement (top-grossing tour by a solo artist in history) should definitely be in the lead too. Why not give readers all that information at a first glance?! Israell (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to be a brief introduction to the subjects notability, which mean giving readers an accurate representation of why the subject is notable. For a musician, that means an overview of the analysis of her music, not just listing a bunch of awards and achievements. Michel and Elvis (espcially after their deaths) have unique circumstances with their titles: you literally can't pick up a paper, book, or magazine without seeing 'King of Pop' or 'King of Rock n Roll' directly after their name. The same is not true of Madonna. And even with Michael and Elvis, isn't not crucial to understanding their biographies/careers that the reader understand people gave them a nickname - that defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. The Legacy section is the most appropriate place for glorification of the subject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary and it can never include everything that exists in the article. We have to be selective in what can be given at "first glance". She is referred to as "Queen of Pop" by some and there is no problem discussing this in the article. It is discussed in the legacy section, where it is given some context and some attribution. By doing it this way, it has some meaning. Placing it in the first paragraph of the article, it has no context, no attribution, and therefore no real meaning. It's reduced to a catchphrase. Think also about the placement of it. Every time it's added, it's right at the beginning, and this implies greater significance and importance, and places undue emphasis on one phrase. Recently it was added to the first paragraph of the lead section and the first paragraph of the biographical section of the article. Honestly, how much emphasis do you want to place on one phrase? Madonna's notability lies on the degree of success and longevity she has achieved during her career, the record sales she has achieved, her impact on popular culture etc. Her notability does not rest on a bunch of people calling her "Queen of Pop" but every time we stick this into the first paragraph, this is what we are saying. Yes, there are also catchphrases attached to Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Tina Turner and probably others. Have you ever considered that perhaps the way we are doing it here is right, and maybe other articles are not right? Perhaps there are compelling and unique reasons for including it in those articles, or perhaps not. In any case, this discussion is about one article. "They do it in another article, so that means we should do it here" is not a good case for an argument. Rossrs (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. Her title of Queen of Pop needs to be included. Why are the wikipedia people so stubborn when it comes to simple, well founded request like this? Just include it for God's sake. Perhaps it's not as known a title as Micheal, but few people are as known and accessible as he was. She was much racier than him, and has never had as universal a following. You can't compare anyone to MJ. That's what made him who he is. Also, if you read newspapers, particularly ones in the UK, you will see her referred to by this name on a constant basis. She and MJ were friends, and her eulogy for him at the VMAs was do to her being the "Widowed Queen". You're argument about this title not being known is only strengthened by your unwillingness to include it. You're enabling this. The change should be made. She's known by this name. You say there's no good enough reason for it, despite its truth. Where's the reason against it? This is a common sense change. We shouldn't even have to discuss this(173.60.208.15 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Wrong info.

Madonna did NOT start studying Kaballah in 1994! That is way too early and whatever source you used has misinformation. Madonna herself has mentioned numerous times that she didn't start studying Kaballah until after her daughter (Lourdes) was born and that was in late 1996. She took up Kaballah in 1997. All of these mentions are from video interviews, available on Youtube, but I'm certain there are many written articles with the mention as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.95.72 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

The real name is Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, so I propose to insert also the name Veronica into the main page article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.201.120 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Her stage name is a mononym It would be nice to mention this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.166.32 (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Source

The article said: Writer-author Santiago Fouz-Hernández, in his book Madonna's Drowned Worlds has commented that female pop performers such as Britney Spears, Destiny's Child, Jennifer Lopez, Kylie Minogue, Pink and most recently Lady Gaga How can he wrote about Lady Gaga in a 2004 book. 190.233.8.10 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Removing it. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The True Haggishness

I don't think your showing the reality of Miss Ciccone's haggishness..shouldn't we use one of the pictures that more accurately depicts what her appearance is most of the time rather than using the Myspace main photo pic we have up right now? I mean really we don't wikipedia to be on that level..using flattering pictures of people we like and unflattering ones of people we don't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.5 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The basis for image choice is that it is not subject to copyright or conditions of use. There are plenty of unflattering pictures on Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking the subject. The image in use is fairly recent, it shows what she looks like, and it's been donated to Wikpedia by the photographer so is therefore free to use. That's why it's being used. Rossrs (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Dispute

I have decided to post this because there is an edit dispute between me and Legolas2186. Should Bedtime Stories be included in the headline? In fact I think that Erotica and Sex should have there own section and Bedtime Stories and Evita also have their own. I shall post my full opinion about WHY I think this after someone replies. I do not think this dispute can finish without people's opinions. I'd be very grateful. I'm not gonna push for my proposition and if its rejected, I will be fine with that, as long as there's reasons. I think this is a seroius issue. Rogue Leader-- 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of Erotica and BS in the header. Reason being the biography and the content present in the section itself. The header only lists the most important events happening in a particular year range. As seen, in that (92 - 96) year range, the main concentration is on the release of Sex and that of Evita. Erotica and the release of BS were overshadowed by the overtly sexual theme of Sex and Madonna's attempt at reviving her image with Evita. Hence mention of Erotica and BS at the header is giving them undue importance. Both of them are mentioned in no more than 2-3 lines. I believe that is enough. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since Madonna's primary occupation is a singer, her studio albums will have priority over anything else. I can agree it makes the section heading terribly long. I think maybe Evita and Bedtime Stories should be given a new section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a case regarding the occupation. This should be regarding what was poignant and important at that moment. The release of Sex overshadowed everything else, including the musical aspects of Madonna. Hence Sex is present in the header. It was followed by Madonna's image change which was fruitful with the release of Evita, not by Bedtime Stories or Something to Remember. Hence my opposition regarding their inclusion in the header. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree Sex and Evita were big, but I think its incorrect to assume they overshadowed Erotica and Bedtime Stories to the point they get excluded from the section heading. The music video for Bedtime Stories got quite a bit of attention, considering the cost and imagery. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
BUT all her studio albums are a point in career. No, Something To Remember shouldn't be included and actually Bedtime Stories WAS notable because it was a tone-down point (in terms of sexuality). This was such a big point in her career, that it would be good it have 2 different sections like I suggested. Bedtime Stories oddly had not supporting tour, I think that's the only reason that should be used to not include it in the headline. Yes and Bedtime Story did have a infamous music video and at the same time, the song Take A Bow topped the US for 7 weeks. Rogue Leader -- 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think its rather silly to have Erotica and Bedtime Stories in the heading as they have little significance against the importance of the Sex book and Evita. Both had huge publicity and are notable to non-fans. The former two albums are not notable just because they had expensive videos or Madonna toned down her image. The heading at the moment is far too long and should be changed. JWAD talk 16:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Like a Prayer video

"It suggested an interracial relationship between Madonna's character and a black priest, hence it was condemned by the Vatican."

Huh? What does the fact that the priest was black have to do with the condemnation? Wouldn't it just have been because it was a priest? 98.21.144.136 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Would a database of Madonna's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. www.songkick.com/artists/363507-madonna? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics of this particular site, I think that ELYES policy would cover this type of site. Wikipedia traditionally links to credible databases, and if this is determined to be the credible database for this type of data, I would be in support of linking to it. I think for a concert performer it would be useful to have the equivalent of IBDB for a Broadway theatre performer, or IMDb for a film person. And thank you for plainly saying that you work for Songkick. Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
We've centalized the disscution about songkick.com at the External_links/Noticeboard, See this discussion. Feel free to comment on this link suitability there. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy Section

Is she dead...? 91.106.235.119 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Just to be clear, a legacy is something you leave behind after you're dead - so why is there a large section entitled "legacy" on the page of a living artist? It doesn't make any sense. 91.106.235.119 (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol. No of course she is not. Legacy is not something you leave behind only when you are dead. Madonna's work, music, her contribution to the musical scene including making changes are all aprt of her legacy because she was teh one to do it first and is leaving a recipe for others to follow it as an example and guideline. Hence the section is present (although I wish it would have been a little shorter). --Legolas (talk2me) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you read a definition of "legacy". It's not appropriate. FYI, none of these artists' pages mention the word "legacy":- Chuck Berry, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis. But these artists' pages do mention the word "legacy": Elvis, Michael Jackson, Nina Simone, Janis Joplin. Can we see a pattern emerging here....? 91.106.235.119 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The Michael Jackson article had a legacy section long before his death - along with other featured articles on currently living artists such as Janet Jackson, Sex Pistols, R.E.M. and Pink Floyd. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Italian American heritage

Madonna is of Italian American heritage. It should be stated in the first sentence of the article.

I would replace :

is an American recording artist

with

is an Italian American recording artist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy8912 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. She has never made a big deal about her ethnic origin.Paul210 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done: Welcome and thanks for this suggestion. Her heritage is already mentioned several places in the article. Since that is not central to her notability, it does not need to be added to the lede. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, she clearly says in the film "In bed with Madonna" that she is an italian/american and that she is proud of it.

Should note she forced the site name away from a previous owner, despite the fact that "madonna" has been a common noun in the English language for hundreds of years. I feel said decision was wrong.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html Ykral (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


1. Madonna copyrighted the name "Madonna" decades ago. Madonna said: "I trademarked it to the world."

2. Dan Parisi, the cybersquatter in questions, only registered it in order to profit from Madonna's fame. He only put porn on it. Why put porn on a website called Madonna? Yes, Madonna did erotic stuff but not full hardcore porn with penetration, jizz all over etc.

As soon as Madonna asked to get the domain, Dan offered Catholic nuns the domain... If Dan Parisi was oh so Catholic and charitabl, why did he put porn on it -which is NOT Catholic-? LOL!

Besides, the nuns already had madonna.org. So... The decision was more than fair and justified. Israell (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Madonna opening line

Shouldn't it read Madonna is a grammy award winning artist...as it does for Mariah Carey and others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.83.111 (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated picture??? / New Section

Should we add an updated picture of Madonna? I'm thinking of one circa David Letterman 2009. She has really changed a lot since 2008, especially after her divorce (she's a lot more free). Just a thought.

And also, we should make the Celebration era a different section. It sould be 2007-Sticky & Sweet Tour and then Celebration- Present or something along those lines.

Josemrdj (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a new picture sould be aded now. A picture from her Dolce & Gabbana 2010 ads or a picture of her and her daughter Lourdes from the premiere of the movie 9.


I think we should also include the fact that she played in the Haiti Teleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.34.185 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah i would love a more recent picture of Madonna, this one has been around for a couple of years now so would be nice to have a recent image of her maybe of a live performance fro Sticky & Sweet or a recent promotional one maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.195.153 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Musical style and influences

In this section, in paragraph 5, please fix typo: it's "behind", not "behing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.85.88 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 album

The article states that Madonna has begun work on her follow up to Hard Candy. This is rumoured and no offical source has confirmed that Madonna is working on a new album so therefore it should be not included, even though it is probably true. The A-Trak comments should be removed. He twittered "That quote is made up. The whole thing is phoney… but very entertaining. And who knows, could happen one day." from http://twitter.com/Atrak

Until Guy Osery or Madonna.com or Madonna herself confirms she is working on a new album or another collaborator comes out and confirms that they are working with Madonna, then this part of the article should not be included. Wikipedia is fact about Madonna not rumours or possibilities for the future. If you want fan gos, go to fan sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.203.244 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Madonna's mother

There is not a lot of information out there about Madonna's mother. Did she speak French? When did she move to the United States? I heard that she was once a dancer and even a technician or some kind. Is this true? I also wonder about whether she died suddenly or whether she had been ill for a long time. 128.118.41.122 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

She was a radiographer's assistant and died of breast cancer on December 1st, 1963. She was actually born in the US, although her family was French Canadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.204.211 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Education

There is some slightly inaccurate information in her bio. Prior to attending the zUniversity of Michigan, she attended the NC School of the Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.57.238 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Musical style

I think the musical style section on this article does not cover much info about her musical style. It tells more about influence and video style. We should expand the section, like on the other featured articles Michael Jackson or Janet Jackson, by describing her vocal style and the genre variety throughout her career. It should be mentioned that she is not only able to sing dance-pop songs, but also adult contemporary ballads, or even opera music such as "Don't Cry for Me Argentina". 125.165.115.232 (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article semi-protected?

There doesn't appear to be any pitched edit wars or vandalism occurring. Looking over the recent history, it would appear that this article has been locked for over three weeks. Enough. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This page will not be unlocked..pls see -->here for more info.Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Daughter Lourdes and new publicity

As madonna is debuting a teen fashion line with her daughter, i think the daughter deserves a WP article of her own now, which would cancel the redirect. any thoughts?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Still no notability. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Image sizes

Is there a reason why all the images are 180px or so? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

1.7 2007–presemt:

presemt. just sayin' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.191.79 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for pointing it out -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


NEW MADONNA PHOTO IS NEEDED!

That picture of madonna has being there for ages, it's time to get a new pic, maybe from the sticky and sweet tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.163.99 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much a diary

Her music and film career is the bulk of her article as it should be. Other info, like marriages should be separated out. Otherwise, it is just a huge massive diary, not an encyclopedia Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. There is nothing wrong with the way the article is structured; the same style is used in many FA biographies. I suggest you wait for consensus before making major and potentially controversial edits. Your 'fishing out' disrupted the flow of the article when I was trying to review it at FAC. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Luz

You could add that Jesus Luz is a Brazillian model and the two met in a photo shoot for W magazine, when Madonna was in Brazil during her Sticky and Sweet Tour.

Madonna was not born 'Madonna'

We should change Madonna was born 'Madonna Louise Ciccone' to Madonna was born 'Maria Louise Ciccone'. This is a widely known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.223.37 (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A "widely known fact"? I've been a major fan for over 25 years and it's the first time I've ever heard this "fact". It's certainly never appeared in any of the dozens of biographies written about her, and her brother, Christopher, didn't mention it in his book about their life together. In Europe (and especially in Italy), it is often asserted that her real name is "Louise" and that "Madonna" is just a stage name, but it is a "widely known fact" that she was named after her mother, Madonna Fortin Ciccone.

Wasn't it "Madonna Veronica Louise Ciccone"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.210.63 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


You're all wrong, Madonna's full name is Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone Johnnyboytoy (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Madonna was born as Madonna Louise Ciccone, her mother also being named Madonna, and thus having the nickname "Little Noni". Veronica was added when she was comfirmed in honor of St. Veronica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.242.170 (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No mention of "Glee" episode and soundtrack hitting #1

Seems noteworthy.

Edit request from Ludopedia, 23 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change On October 14, 1996, Madonna gave birth to Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon, her daughter with Leon.[83] to On October 14, 1996, Madonna (age 38) gave birth to Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon, her daughter with Leon.[83]


Ludopedia (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As Madonna's date of birth is given in the article, I don't understand the need to provide her age at the time of Lourdes' birth. Anyone interested can calculate her age at the time, just as they can for any other key event in her article that is not accompanied by her age. Why do you wish to include her age? Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Extra information. Seems more like a footnote thing. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FA suggestions

You may not take these well, but they are valid nonetheless.

  • Make the lead the most basic information possible. It's overburdened by trivia for a lead as it stands. A lead should be powerful and succinct to get your point across that the rest of the article is worth reading. Consider this version:
    • Kind of agree to this version, then again thinking, will this conform to WP:LEAD?

Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone; August 16, 1958) is an American recording artist, actress 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 pop groups, she released her debut album in 1983. She followed it with a series of albums in 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 nearly three-decade career X number of her songs have hit number 1 on X number of charts, including "Like a Virgin", "Like a Prayer", "Vogue", "Music", "Hung Up", and "4 Minutes". Madonna has been praised by critics for her diverse musical productions while at the same time serving as a lightning rod for religious-related controversy.

Her popularity was further enhanced by a film career that began in 1985, which has received mixed commentary. She won a Golden Globe Award for her role in Evita (1992), but has received harsh criticism for other film roles.

Madonna has sold more than 200 million albums worldwide. She is ranked by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) as the best-selling female rock artist of the 20th century, and the second top-selling female artist in the United States behind Barbra Streisand, with 64 million certified albums. Guinness World Records listed her as the world's most successful female recording artist of all time. In 2008, Billboard magazine ranked Madonna at number two behind only The Beatles, on the "Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists", making her the most successful solo artist in the history of the chart. She was also inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Considered to be one of the most influential figures in contemporary music, Madonna is known for continually reinventing both her music and image, and for retaining a standard of autonomy within the recording industry.

  • Expand information about her film career and add some of her other ventures (books, etc.) to the second paragraph. Find the right numbers to go in X number.
  • I find it odd to see "Biography" as a subheading in an article that's obviously a biography. Can you change it to "Career" instead?
Life and career? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of 1958–81: Early life and beginnings, I find a strange juxtaposition of detail in the names of all her siblings (is it necessary to list them all?) and then the absence of an explanation of what her mother meant to her, and how her mother's death may have foreshadowed Madonna's drive for fame and excellence.
I think the quote about how she faced her mother's dead body justifies this. Also, I don't think that how her mother impacted her is necessary at this point, because Madonna herself did not know whether she would have been influenced by Senior Madonna or not. I think the later quotes , about how specific albums (Like a Prayer) are about family, motherhood etc can justify it more. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Briefs? Was she wearing briefs as a kid? That's a specific garment for males. How about underwear? That's more generic a term.
Changed to "underwear". Rossrs (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Be careful with the word "squalor". This term is reserved for people living in or near garbage dumps or crack houses, near open sewage or obviously filthy and dangerous conditions. Did she live this way? There are some impoverished places in New York City (and moreso in the late 1970s), but "squalor", though inevitably present in some places, is more difficult to find there.
Removed phrase "lived in squalor". The point seems to be that she had no money rather than her living conditions. We can assume she didn't have the Park Avenue apartment while she worked at "Dunkin' Donuts". Rossrs (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • undermined family values, offering an unsavory image of Madonna as a whore. Outraged moralists condemned her as a sex kitten and sought to ban the song and the video This might need a quote here, either from, say, the president of the Catholic League or a biographer attesting to how outraged people were at Madonna. I don't disbelieve it at all. I watched it while it was happening, giggling the entire time at what folks get their panties in a bunch about, but for neutrality's sake "whore", "sex kitten", and other vociferous protests are charged words that should be quoted in a BLP (and an FA).
I think a cut-down version of the sentence makes the same point. "The title track attracted the attention of family organizations who complained that the video and the song promoted premarital sex and undermined family values." If something is to be said about Madonna rather than the song or the video, I think it should have a direct quote. I've changed this but if Legolas has the book that's used as the source and wishes to add a sentence in which a further quote can be given, that would be good. A lot of "stuff" has been said about Madonna, and it would be appropriate to include a few specifics, especially for such a (at the time) career-defining piece of work. Rossrs (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I think this is better and provides a lead-in for a comment specifically about Madonna. "The title track attracted the attention of family organizations who complained that the song and its accompanying video promoted premarital sex and undermined family values, [cite] and moralists sought to have the song and video banned.[cite] Legolas, if you disagree, this is easily undone. Rossrs (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No Rossrs, its fine now. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Does this have a quote somewhere? The performance is noted by scholars and by MTV as an iconic performance in MTV history. Who says this?
Over all, any book on Madonna, any scholarly analysis of MTV and its pop culture, cites Madonna's performance as the iconic performance. I don't think this line is addressed by a single person, rather, the whole scholar community. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "That whole tour was crazy, because I went from playing CBGB and the Mudd Club to playing sporting arenas. I played a small theater in Seattle, and the girls had flap skirts on and the tights cut off below their knees and lace gloves and rosaries and bows in their hair and big hoop earrings. I was like, 'This is insane!' After Seattle, all of the shows were moved to arenas. I've never done a bus tour. Everyone says they are really fun." I don't think this quote really offers insight into Madonna's style, impact, or...really anything...I think and suggest you drop it.
I agree to your point, but the explanation behind this is that the quote cites, how Madonna's starship considerably increased at the end of the Like a Virgin era. Specifically, the fact that people started emulating her style left and right, and that she went from playing at CBGB (smaller) to bigger arenas. May be I can shorten it? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've started to differentiate your sentence and paragraph starts to make the writing flow better. Too many sentences and paragraphs begin with "Madonna". Can you go through the article, starting at 2003–06: American Life, Confessions on a Dance Floor and adoption case and pick out every instance of Madonna's name, changing half of them to "she"?
  • It was complimented for its concept and Madonna's innovative dresses. I don't know what this means.
Removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding the tour, Madonna commented "I realised that I could go from being unmoulded clay,... I'm starting to see a pattern here where Madge's quotes are placed in paragraphs about her experiences, tours, music, etc., but they're not really connected to an overall theme in the article. Madonna is the queen of reinvention. By this time she had already reinvented herself a dozen times since 1983 and probably several dozen times since her youth in Bay City. It seems you're supplanting solid citable observations, i.e. that Madonna seeks to constantly reinvent herself (for what reason? I mean, I'm wondering if her mother's death at Madonna's young age left a sense of being unmoored, disconnected, and untied to her sense of self) and using quotes from Madonna instead that are too narrowly defined by a tour instead of focusing on the overall pattern and its impact on culture.
Umm, actually at this time (1987), Madonna had reinvented herself only twice (Like a Virgin, True Blue). She became the queen of reinvention subsequently with Like a Prayer and the succeeding releases. What Madonna reinvented before she became prominent in the music scene is actually not reported. At this point she had two concrete images: the slutty virgin bride and the Monroe-esque beautiful blond. It was at the Who's That Girl era that she started changing and reinventing quite drastically from platinum bob blond, to a brunette to a glamour doll to a sexual renegade etc. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Same complaint here: Collaborating with French producer Mirwais Ahmadzaï, Madonna commented: "I'm always searching for something new and edgy and undiscovered. I love to work with the weirdos that no one knows about—the people who have raw talent and who are making music unlike anyone else out there. Music is the future of sound." It would be more effective to include solid observations about patterns from critics or biographers and perhaps half the quote from Madonna to make the point clearer in fewer words.
Added Erlewine's comments about it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I restored the word "weirdos" after it was replaced by [people]. I think the original wording is more revealing. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto: She commented, "[American Life] was like a trip down memory lane, looking back at everything I've accomplished and all the things I once valued and all the things that were important to me. What is my perspective now? I've fought for so many things, I've tried so hard to be number one and to stay on top, to look good, to be the best. And I realized that a lot of things that last and the things that matter are none of those things."
Shortened it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you need to state early, as in the first mention of Shanghai Surprise, that Madonna's film career has almost consistently been poorly received by critics. She has been nominated for several Razzies, has she not? Perhaps mention that her roles in Evita and if memory serves, A League of Their Own received mixed or positive critical reviews. Quotes like The New York Times described the film as "angry and painful, and the pain feels real." for an insignificant role...makes me feel like the article writer(s) are grasping for something positive to say about her acting. Just embrace it: film critics generally hate Madonna. Does Madonna have any insight as to why she consistently gets panned by critics? How about her own acting abilities? Why does she continue to make films when she gets so much negativity about it?
Agree with Rossr's comments below. Also, is it necessary to list at the beginning of the film career. Isn't it better at the influences section? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I stopped at 2003–06: American Life, Confessions on a Dance Floor and adoption case. I will pick it up again after a break.


  • An incredible amount of work has gone into this article, but it's a bit awkward in places. I do not think it will take much to tighten it into an impressive piece of work, perhaps the definitive treatment of Madonna's life and career. It's something for which you should be very proud. Karanacs closes on Saturday. By rights, I should oppose the article because I believe all the items I've pointed out do not make an FA yet. Tell me what you're willing to do. If you're willing to make the suggested changes, I will ask Karanacs not to archive the FAC yet until we're finished working on it. She may listen and postpone archiving/promotion until next Tuesday for SandyGeorgia. If you think I'm full of shit and have butchered your article, however, I'll just oppose it for now and we can agree to disagree. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"Does Madonna have any insight as to why she consistently gets panned by critics? How about her own acting abilities?"" - that's an interesting point. Here's a little snippet from Goddess by Barbara Victor, page 96-97, which I will abbreviate. (Madonna's comment could be seen as saving face or an attempt to shift blame, but there's also a ring of truth to the "brushstroke" reference.)
On every set of each film Madonna has made..... she has always been given high marks for her behavior.... After a film is finished, and the reviews aren't good, her excuse has frequently been that when she acts in someone else's film, based on someone else's characters, and speaks words from someone else's script, when that "someone else" is in charge of production it is doomed to fail. "I suppose I'm not very good at sitting around and waiting for someone to give me orders," she has said. "I've been unlucky with my films because it's difficult for me to be a brushstroke in someone else's painting." Rossrs (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To me that says she kind of misses the point about dedication to a character. I get the impression that professional actors and even models put pride into making themselves believable (models that they think they look good in sometimes ridiculous get-ups). Surely some renowned critic has an authoritative quote that can summarize the discrepancy between Madonna's superlative music, dancing, and videos when compared with her lackluster and strained performances in film. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite my take on it. I think Madonna takes pride in making herself believable, or she couldn't have succeeded so wildly with her videos and with her "personas". I think the videos demonstrate total commitment. To me it says that she takes no responsibility for the failure of individual films and does not question her ability as an actor, and perhaps that says something about her being part of a team. Leader of a team, yes. Part of a team, probably no. I think she's saying that she can't succeed when she's not in charge because she can't relate to someone else's vision, and she presents this point more as strength of character than a flaw or weakness. It's also interesting she isn't challenging the view of the critics, and in fact seems to endorse their view of her. Also from the same book (pages 316-317) regarding the discrepancy you mention. When it came to making a successful movie career, her mistake was not necessarily in trying to mold herself after such stars as Carole Lombard, Judy Holliday, Marilyn Monroe, or even Marlene Dietrich. Her error was in believing that she could take her talent for making videos, which are minimalist movies, four minutes and twenty-two seconds, and sustain it for feature-length movies. and Paul Gambacinni, the London radio personality and rock-and-roll expert, believes that when critics like Vincent Canby from the "New York Times" criticize Madonna for not making good movies, they fail to realize that she has, in fact, made several outstanding films. "If you think about it, " Gambacinni says, "most of Walt Disney's Oscars were for short films. There is nothing disgraceful about a great video. It's like a novella or a collection of short stories. It just happens that Madonna is good at impact and not character development. In other words, for five minutes she'll hold your attention with an image and an effect, but don't ask her to show you how she got to that point because she can't. Paul Gambacinni may not be the most authoritative person to offer such a viewpoint, but the sentiment is probably something that could be attributed to someone more of an expert in that area of critique. Rossrs (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I believe she probably is a force of nature instead of a person you might meet walking down the street. I agree with you that she wants to be team leader, but a significant part of acting is playing off of others and allowing other actors to shine when necessary. In effect, the story is the star and the actors help propel the story. Madonna may be physically incapable of being just a regular ol' human, drawing on her own experiences or modeling other people's emotions because she's goddamn Madonna and who needs to experience anything more than being goddamn Madonna? Ok, this is chit chat. A reliable source, an authority on film or culture, should be able to address an opinion as to why so many of Madonna's films get trashed when so much of her music is groundbreaking. --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
A little more chit-chat, but may be of value for anyone working to address these points. She drew generally good reviews from Evita (a star piece) and A League of Their Own (as part of an ensemble). Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Penny Marshall both spoke highly of her professionalism and degree of investment in each project and perhaps the rapport is what sets those films apart. Desperately Seeking Susan and to a degree Dick Tracy were regarded as making effective use of Madonna rather than eliciting great performances from her, which kind of underlines the need for the right project and/or director. I'll keep looking and see if I can find anything to bring this together that can be attributed to something authoritative. Rossrs (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

  • How was Four English Roses received?
Added
  • This: "[American Life] was like a trip down memory lane, looking back at everything I've accomplished and all the things I once valued and all the things that were important to me. What is my perspective now? I've fought for so many things, I've tried so hard to be number one and to stay on top, to look good, to be the best. And I realized that a lot of things that last and the things that matter are none of those things." is a very interesting quote, but it's not fully explored. Was this a turning point in her career? I can't tell. I mean, she's been on top for two decades by this time and she says none of that was really important, but she continues with the same stuff she's done previously: tours, albums, making out with Britney...what really changed? Was she just offering lip service?
LOL. I couldn't help but laugh. Now, seriously, at this point she felt that American Life was an important turning point as she wanted to tell the world her thoughts about her motherland's condition, she realized that although she might have achieved everything she wanted, but was it really worth it? Can she remain blind to the fact that her country was at loggerheads while she was earning gazillions? However, it did not turn out the way she expected, instead America ended up calling her unpatriotic for this. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the complaints about the diary thing. The paragraphs aren't really cohesive in theme, just chronologies. This is somewhat jarring. Really unpopular suggestion alert: if it took a week to re-organize the article and separate the themes within: personal life and relationships, business ventures, music career, film career, performance style (controversies), miscellaneous stuff, what do you really and honestly think would be worse--a delayed FA or one that's a bit confusing and awkwardly written? Can you justify the way the article is laid out now with reasons other than it would be a mighty pain in the ass to change it? What if I promised you I would assist with it?
This, for instance, would make it clearer when Madonna says she sees different priorities. If that quote were in its own section about her personal life, leading to her adoptions and children's book writing, this would stand out as a more impressive theme in her life.
As I read the Music videos and performances section, I see this section would be significantly stronger if the instances of Madonna getting harped on by the Vatican and others were included with her expressing herself/being a media whore (depending on the critic).
Then also I would disagree against a section-wise division, as I said before in reply to some other reviewer that, it just simply doesnot remain a biography then. I will comment on it below. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The documentary was directed by her former gardener Nathan Rissman. Que what? Is this sentence missing some information about how Rissman was perhaps more than a gardener?
LOL. He was just that only, a gardener. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Reasons for the divorce from Ritchie?
Usual. Irreconcilable differences. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Information about the Kabbalah and Sandra Bernhard in Influences is redundant. That has already been mentioned.
Removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Who says this? "with its almost exclusively lip-synced videos, ushered in an era in which average music fans might happily spend hours a day, every day, watching singers just mouth the words."
Attributed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in Music videos and performances is obtuse: has she lip-synched during concerts? How widespread was this? It seems as if the article writers are trying to explain it and excuse at once. The effect is that I'm just confused.
Question is has anybody lip-synched during concerts? Answer is yes. Question is has anybody ever admitted to it? Well, no. But artists like Madonna and Jackson, used the lip-synching to utlize for greater showmanship. They did not care that they were actually not singing, but if the show was great, then that was fine. As one writer states that it was during the Blond Ambition Tour that Madonna was heavily accused of lip-syncing, which she took care of in the subsequent tours by standing during the chorus and letting her background dancers do the main choreography. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Madonna's initial music videos reflected her American and Hispanic mixed street style combined with a flamboyant glamor This is confusing. She's not Hispanic, but she adopts other styles easily. Is that really the point of what is trying to be said?
It is referring to her style, not to her race. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In doing so she has provided an example of how to maintain one's career in the entertainment industry. This has got to be someone's opinion.
Fouz's. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done for now, although I may have to revisit the article. Let me know your thoughts. If I were in your shoes I might want to strangle me (I think that anyway), but I promise you two things: if you take these suggestions your article will kick serious ass and I will help you get it there. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To revisit: I took about two hours to separate the information thematically in a sandbox. Please take a look at it. It's still unpolished and I think some information can be removed, particularly about her controversial performances. The point as it is in one section is driven home more than forcefully. Some copy editing for cohesion and flow is necessary in a couple parts, particularly in the film career section. Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at it, and I have a few concerns. I think it looks a lot better and easier to extract information from. I think if someone wanted to quickly look at the article and find information on a particular topic, it's excellent. But if they wanted to find out for example, what was Madonna doing and what was her impact during a particular time period, they'd then have to scan through each section. I see it as fixing one problem and creating another. I think if someone wanted to read it from start to finish it's somewhat disjointed and unrelated. Her film career has largely been an extension of her music career, despite her aspirations and placing it into two sections loses some of the interaction between the two aspects of her career. Each aspect is written in a way that is clear and readable, but in my opinion it's at the expense of some context. The first mention of her film career is the Who's That Girl soundtrack, "a film in which she also starred". Some of the intersections between her music and film work are minor (eg "This Used to Be My Playground and A League of Their Own and "Die Another Day" and the film of the same name and "American Pie" and The Next Best Thing), but Evita isn't mentioned at all in the "Recording Career" section despite it being the most successful fusion of film and music so far in her career.
I think splitting off the discussion of controversies etc makes the point stronger in that section by relating specifically to that point, but I'm worried that it weakens the discussion within the recording career section. It gives facts and figures, and indicates her successes, but the perception of her, and her impact isn't dealt with. "Music videos and performances" has a sentence that reads : "Nearly the entirety of Madonna's career has generated some kind of controversy. ", but that's not apparent in the "recording career" section. If anyone chooses to read only that section, they'll only get to know that everything she released was a hit one way or another, not that she tried to push boundaries or create discussion or that she wasn't universally accepted.
My last concern is more about the FA procedure, and it's not entirely based on your suggestions. If the article is significantly changed will it be fair to still count the support votes (in this case, 12 votes) who made their call before the change? I'm sure this has happened before, but I don't know how it's dealt with. Even without your suggestions, there have been a lot of edits since the first person indicated support at the FA nom, and I'm sure that is almost always the case, but is it then that person's responsibility to monitor FA discussion to ensure the article doesn't evolve into something they would be less inclined to support? To be honest, I'd be one of those less inclined to support it, because I think the existing structure works better. I prefer a chronology, and I don't like the idea of the timeline starting again at the beginning of each section, and if that gets called "diary", well I guess it is, but I still prefer it. That's something for everyone to consider - if we make a big change to the article, do we then have to throw out this nomination and start again? Rossrs (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
To address your last paragraph first, we can ask clarification from SandyGeorgia on what she would prefer. Occasionally FACs run for a couple months, such as Samuel Johnson, that had to be closed by Raul. It started as a straightforward FAC but the amount of time it spent at FAC exacerbated some of the prose issues and the process started becoming contentious. As a topic, Madonna is huge. I'm probably telling you something you already know, but most FAs don't get the amount of traffic Madonna gets. After 17 FAs of my own, were I nominating Madonna, I would not be surprised that it took at least two tries for the article to go through, and I'd be ok with three or four nominations. I do not see an archive of this FAC as a failure at all, just another step in getting it to be the absolute best it can be. Phase two, so to speak. (Even after articles are promoted they are not finished and I often update, reorganize, and rewrite sections of the FAs I've written.) If it is substantially changed (such as the sandbox reorganization) upon discussion of invested editors, I would not consider it unstable because people are discussing it and have the article's best interest at heart. Major Depressive Disorder was overhauled during two FACs, but ultimately promoted. If it was involved in a massive edit war over sources and questionable information, that's another issue entirely.
I understand your points about the film career seeming to be disjointed in its own section, and I agree that it can be a trade-off in organizing some information means other info is made less clear. I wanted to provide an example of what it might look like. However, when the film info is placed in its own section as it is in the sandbox, it becomes really evident that a treatment of criticism on Madonna's film career is lacking. Another suggestion is to re-integrate the film and business venture information into the Recording career (changing the subheading to "Career"), add a couple sentences in the Career section asserting that she pushes boundaries with her videos and performances, often receiving harsh sanction from religious authority, and then exploring her mastery of video and performance in its own section, similar to how it appears in the sandbox. I also think her personal life should remain in its own section. I would even suggest cutting some of the detail there to make it more succinct. Let me know if you have questions or need clarification. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to state that the criticism involving Madonna's film career is pretty simple. There is no criticism, just being panned downright. Yes, there are instances like Evita and ALOTW, but that's just a drop in the ocean among the panned reviews she has got.

Personal life

I totally DISAGREE to separate her biography into some sections you state above. It just makes the reader confused about her timeline. I also against a section for 'personal life' as of previous consensus. Madonna has been a media uproar for decades, and making the own section for personal life will make it become a nice place for tabloid gossips and rumours. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you see as the solution to paragraphs that jump from one topic to the next without any cohesion? I had to do an alt+F to find the information about Carlos Leon because it's buried. I'm not convinced that Madonna's timeline should be the top priority for the article writers and the readers who come to this article. If you had to write out the most important points in this article, would they appear in chronological order? I've had to do this before in a biography. I admit I've not read the sources, but I imagine the most important points would be:
  1. Madonna has been extremely influential in recorded music since the early 1980s
  2. This is attributed to her likeable music, endless self-promotion and reinvention, and ownership of music video as a venue for artistic expression
  3. She has challenged common ideas of what women should be able to accomplish and in what ways they should be able to express themselves
  4. She has expanded her presence to a film career that has been less successful
  5. She has ventured into business, fashion, and authoring books, with varying degrees of success
  6. She has a personal life that's not really personal because it's so much in the news
  7. She is larger than life and a living legend. She's goddamn Madonna.
Ultimately, it appears that FA status may hinge on the best way to organize this information. As I said, I'm not convinced a timeline is the best way to do it, although I acknowledge that there are weaknesses to the thematic sections I built in the sandbox.
I'm confused why you think Madonna's article does not warrant a succinct section on her personal life as other articles about public figures just as controversial (and more so) have them. As for gossip and rumors, isn't it more dangerous to attract bad edits like this just by allowing Madonna's article to exist? Couldn't you get rid of that danger by getting rid of the temptation of having the article here in the first place? Yes, that is a very silly solution. But maintaining Madonna's article to keep it free from nonsense, gossip, and BLP violations is going to be a difficult job. I kind of thought the editors who dedicate themselves to watching this article understood that. Furthermore, your comments about this issue make me wonder if the editors responsible for this article are trying to hide important information, in this case, about her personal life in paragraphs that drown these facts out with other information. Sure, it would be easier to keep out the riffraff, but it does not make the information accessible. --Moni3 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about this overall, but just a couple of quick points. I agree with your points 1 to 7. How to best represent those points, and where to place them I'm still unsure about. I disagree with User:Bluesatellite's reason for not wanting a personal life section. (My reason would be more in line with comments I've already made.) The fact is all articles attract potentially bad edits, gossip, BLP violations and just plain old vandalism. The good news here is that Madonna is a high-traffic, closely watched article. It may attract more than its share of bad edits but they will get spotted more quickly than in many other articles. Bad edits and poor information are part of the price paid for having a project that everyone can contribute to, and those bad edits won't be halted, or even hindered by any particular format or structure. We just have to deal with it as it happens. Rossrs (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced with the structure that you have proposed. As Rossr said, I think that separate sections have their benefits as well as problems. Benefits being that people can find information easily, problem being that it doesnot flow into what happened next, ie the timeline. Since Madonna's film career has been so much interspersed with the musical career, I believe (during my research also) that they are actually inseparable. For eg, if you are commenting on something like Body of Evidence, you are also commenting on the Erotica era and viceversa. Same for Desperately Seeking Susam, Who's That Girl, Evita etc. If you leave them, what else do we get? Shanghai Surprise, The Nest Best Thing and Swept Away, none at all important to have a separate section.
As for the article having a personal life section, believe me when I say, that as I researched in books and scholars, most of the info about her personal life as reported in the media was tabloid fodder. Barring Penn, Beatty, adoptions and Ritchie, everything reported was for the sole purpose of creating headlines. Herein lies my concern for the personal life that it becomes a tabloid fodder and a list of who's who MAdonna has "fucked" (sorry, had to use the word). Notice how in the last section there is no mention of Jesus Luz, whom MAdonna has been dating for quite sometime now. I strongly believe WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY applies in her case, more so than other artists, barring Jackson. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I restructured the Personal life section in the sandbox I created. Please check it out again. I think it's short, to the point, leaves out any sensationalism about her affairs (no pun intended, but accepted nonetheless), which is precisely what is necessary to dissuade vandals and others who feel like pursuing less legitimate insertions to the article. It also made it possible to remove some extraneous information to make it authoritative. I think it meets basic human dignity nicely. Otherwise, I don't understand why personal life information is included throughout the article. The justifications offered don't make any sense. I get the issues about her film career, although I think the article is weak on an overview either of Madonna's less than average acting abilities or film critics' mass movement to pan her emphatically. To address this, I suggest finding an authoritative statement from a film critic or biographer to answer this.
I think a sentence or two in 1982–85: Madonna and Like a Virgin to explain her impact in video and her performances would do nicely to inform readers that she has been a controversial figure. Most of that, however, should be in its own section. She really is quite effective--this is an understatement...she is revolutionary--in doing this and it deserves a concentrated discussion of how she riles up religious authority and makes the music video medium her personal bitch. --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the version that you have proposed in your sandbox. However, major concern in that is it again intermixes the musical aspects and the "personal life" aspects of the artist. For eg, the Ray of Light part. Second concern is that it again makes it look like an exhaustive list which has been interjected in the article (one of the reasons that personal life was made a part of the main flow per previous consensus). If you compare high traffic articles like Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson, you can see how their personal lives have been mingled with their main career. One of the main things I have observed with any celebrity is that try as much as they want to, they cannot separate their personal life from their professional life. It all gets mixed. As to your question for dissuading vandals, the separate section I believe will actually create more problem. There will be editors who say, "if so-and-so is there then why not so-and-so-others"? Most don't understand what they are adding is tabloid speculations, and not scholarly analysis.
For the second part, I believe the impact of her music videos already has a separate section. And Like a Virgin did not establish her as a controversial figure, the song was controversial. She became a controversial figurine with "Papa Don't Preach". The music video section details on how she has actually used the medium for gender reversal role-playing, the impact of her fashion sense etc. I think its more appropriate there.
I am also adding analysis of Senior Madonna's impact on her. It is necessary as well as her film's being panned. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think if there is to be a section for "film" and a section for "personal life", "controversies" etc, it will only work if the key events are also indicated in the general "recording career" section. They can be amplified in their own sections, but to be placed in context the key events/people/films etc need a basic mention. It's not so much a question of establishing a timeline, but more a case of bringing the individual elements together. Perhaps "personal life" is not the only option for a section title. Angelina Jolie uses "relationships" which is in some ways more inclusive. I also note that Michael Jackson is a good example of an article that does not use a "personal life" section. It just means there's no right or wrong in this, just differing viewpoints.
I've also been thinking that if the main aim is to address the fact that Madonna has inspired comment and analysis from the beginning, we need to expand our sights beyond just "controversy". By some definitions her "Like a Virgin" era did see her portrayed as a controversial figure. We need to look at it with the benefit of hindsight, but also remember that how she was perceived then is not always the same as how that same period is perceived now. Early on she was criticised for being almost "anti-feminist" by portraying herself as a "Boy Toy". We know now that the "Boy Toy" Madonna was anything but a plaything and was not submissive, but at the time, there were people who saw the underwear, and the Boy Toy belt, and the wedding dress, and thought "sell-out" and "bimbo". I remember reading comments at the time that said she'd soon fade away because she too quick to show her bra, and that was mainly to distract people from her lack of talent. As soon as she'd showed everything, people would get bored, and that would be the end of Madonna. There was also a comparison with the more "serious" Cyndi Lauper, and Lauper was the one expected to have staying power and Madonna was expected to fizzle out. There were also comments from some established performers that she was setting the role of women back, by essentially putting the "woman" back into the bedroom. I remember one comment (from one of the Go-Gos) that she was making it harder for women to be taken seriously and she was viewed as an annoyance. Well, now we know that one Madonna is worth more than a whole stadium full of Go-Gos, but back then the comment was seen to have some validity. That's a kind of "controversial". ie she inspired comment and not everyone agreed. So Legolas, I disagree that she became controversial with "Papa Don't Preach". She became associated with a social commentary for the first time with that song, but she was controversial in some form or another from almost the beginning. It's not only important to look at the controversies and discussions that Madonna ignited, but also at her ability to create those opportunities. If we only look at the more blatant controversies, we miss one of the major aspects of Madonna's cultural impact. Rossrs (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. When you put it like that, it definitely shows a new light in the tunnel. What do you suggest? Shall we add it at the beginning section or explore the oppotunity at the influences section. I'm fine with anyone of them. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be discussed in depth. I would suggest in the part of the "recording career" section that discusses this time period, the reaction could mentioned in one or two sentence. It may even fit into the area where her fashion sense was an influence because that's already giving details about how fast and widespread her style was taken up by her fans. Rossrs (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I like the Go Gos. Settle down with the Go Gos bashing. Now I have to read everything else and made a more coherent response that actually has to do with the article... --Moni3 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I love the Go-Gos! I wouldn't bash them. Well maybe the one who didn't like Madonna has it coming. But never Belinda Carlisle or the others who shall remain nameless because I don't remember their names. Rossrs (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The influence of Madonna's mother

This discussion began on my and Legolas's talk pages, but I think it should continue here to allow for other people to comment, particularly Moni3.

I think we need to ensure that undue weight is not placed on her mother's death. We can relate its importance and impact, but briefly. In the "early life" section, I think it should relate just to the immediate impact upon Madonna. For example, her need to assume a maternal role for her younger siblings, turning to her grandmother to serve as a mother figure for her, (both of which are not included, but could be) and if it also contributed to her rebelliousness that could be included before the part about her showing her underwear. In the "influences" section, I think it needs to be abbreviated, and it should go first, assuming that it is the major defining point in her early life. I think it's very important that a link is given between this event and her choice of career, and her drive to excel. If that's followed by her early external influences, Nancy Sinatra etc, that would make the overall section read more smoothly. Rossrs (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I feel what you are saying and made a rearrangement of the section. Take a look and see if what I did is making the flow correct. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks very good, Legolas. That's exactly what I was suggesting. Very good indeed!Rossrs (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

More early images

There needs to be more images of her in the early stages of her career, and definitely during her Like a Virgin period.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image of her highly notable MTV VMA 1984 performance, but User:Legolas2186 removed it with no reason. I know that my image is not a free, but a fair-use from MTV.com, but there's nothing wrong with fair-use image as long as there's no free one and it meets free-use criteria. Janet Jackson (a FA) article has two fair-use images, one of them is about her controversial SuperBowl show. Michael Jackson (FA) has one and even Kylie Minogue (also FA) has three fair-use images. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually the reason I removed the image was because the rationale for its usage was poor. It did not point to any significance of the image, nor did it portray anything in particular. Madonna as the virginal bride is well documented and well published, hence that image actually faisl WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Move?

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna —

  • Agree per Legolas. Yes I agree with the disambiguation aspect. Ah and if Mother Mary is Madonna then why is it not titled Madonna, that's because Mother Mary is more common. Again if Madonna is not being used for anything I would suggest using it for Madonna (entertainer). It also says "occassionally Madonna" EunSoo (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move Most people outside of Italy use the Virgin Mary to refer to the mother of Jesus; whereas Madonna is associated with the entertainer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Primary meaning of Madonna is the Virgin Mary, not the entertainer. This is true of English-speaking countries as well as Italy. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Madonna (entertainer) works quite well. There are too many other meanings of the word 'Madonna' to make the proposed move a sensible one. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not the point if Virgin Mary is primarily Madonna then why does the article quote "occassionally Madonna" and also not titled Madonna. Also on Wikipedia Virgin Mary is not the primar topic apparently the most viewed is a primary topic.EunSoo (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories

Convert to Judaism category? Madonna has stated emphatically that she has not converted to Judaism both in interview and even in her lyrics. Category removed until evidence that states she now self identifies as Jewish is provided. Re-stating Category: Roman Catholic. Apex156 (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Christopher Flynn?

She convinced her father to allow her to take ballet lessons[10] and was persuaded by Christopher Flynn

Is he notable? If not, leave out the name. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Choice of topics in legacy

The last section is legacy. There is a potential problem that we are cherry picking opinons. In this article, it is not yet a problem. How do we prevent someone from inserting opinions that we don't want to have, especially if it is a cited opinion (references)? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not clear at all. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alexander1002, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} i dsd

Alexander1002 (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You may need to rephrase your request. Feel free to restore the editsemiprotected tag when this is done. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 275° 42' 30" NET 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

New track promo?

Is the intro now on icon a promo of Madonna's new track and sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.81.192 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

madonna and new wave

madonnas 1983 album has alotta new wave in it. why isn't she credited in this genre? you guys are calling it "synth-disco" when it is obviously "new wave." the track "BURNING UP", "EVERYBODY", "I KNOW IT", "OVER AND OVER", "LIVE TO TELL" is heavily influenced with the sound. just check out "Tom Tom Club" or "Prince" its the same sound but they call it "new wave". you can't deny the new sound at that time was new wave in the early 80's and disco at the time was considered "OLD" and no one wanted to be apart of it (or even associate themselves) any longer.

i know some people might resent using it because of the whole disco sucks movement and how vocal some of the new wave artist spoke against it. but it "IS".."NEW WAVE" if you hate it or not. but today and alotta 80's revival acts like from the new wave bands are covering her early songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWiki1984 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am having real trouble making heads and tails of your comment. Can you please write in simpler English? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll simplify it: You have a source that Madonna (album) is new wave? TbhotchTalk C. 04:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You're asking me or Wikiwiki1984?? :S --Legolas (talk2me) 04:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
To Wikiwiki. TbhotchTalk C. 04:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

all the songs i quoted are from "madonna"(self titled) 1983 and "like a virgin" 1984. WikiWiki1984 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And again source? See WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:OR, because your comments fail those rules. TbhotchTalk C. 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean source? WikiWiki1984 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A reference, further information identifyng reliable sources. TbhotchTalk C. 04:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/New_Wave_music WikiWiki1984 (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

more on what i wrote above.. it is written on here on 1982-1985 "upbeat synthetic disco, utilizing some of the new technology of the time, like the usage of Linn drum machine, Moog bass and the OB-X synthesizer."

BURNING UP, EVERYBODY, KNOW IT, OVER AND OVER, LIVE TO TELL,

sorry, i thought everybody reads the main article.

WikiWiki1984 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just forget it. You don;t have any clue what Tbhotch said. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Poll: 'Vogue' Is Fave Madonna Chart-Topper". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. September 15, 2000. Retrieved 2007-12-14.
  2. ^ Pitts, p. 40
  3. ^ "Poll: 'Vogue' Is Fave Madonna Chart-Topper". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. September 15, 2000. Retrieved 2007-12-14.
  4. ^ Pitts, p. 40
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_10&oldid=1092035216"