Talk:Madonna/Archive 7

Where is her discography?
Can't find it.Bib (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The box named Madonna at the bottom. 60.254.35.186 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quick reply. Bib (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble with this. It seems to be pretty standard for artists' pages on wikipedia to have a specific discography section. I've found this immensely useful, especially for artists as prolific as Madonna. When I do a text search on this page for "discography", the only thing that comes up is an external link. I don't think it's very obvious that the box at the bottom titled "Madonna" is where you'll find her discography, especially since it seems to be closed by default. The portal isn't obvious either. Inexperienced wikipedians may have trouble navigating this page when looking for her discography. I suggest adding a section in the main body of the article called "Discography", even if all it contains is a link to the page in question. Another option would be to re-title the "Madonna" box at the bottom "Madonna's discography" or something similar. Whatever wikipedians decide to do, a user should be able to find a link to her discography through a text search &/or a quick browsing of the contents. Alberrosidus (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Empty sections? Vikrant 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, even though it's empty, it's standard on other musician's wiki pages to link to the discography page within the main article. There's no reason why this article should be different.  Having the discography section appear in the table of contents at the top of the page is a good navigational aid.  It's too hard to find tucked away at the end of the article in the "related topics" box.  Dejaphoenix 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules. Madonna is not any ordinary musician that you ask "why this article should be different." There are two huge templates which anyone can open. and no overlinking. Vikrant 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue (diff) has also been discussed on User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame and User talk:Dejaphoenix. — Athaenara ✉  21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be a discography section as there are with other artists.--Hookedonlsd (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a huge one as I have stated below. Not needed now since its is spl

Third opinion
Wide consensus and the main Music Project guidelines do indicate that an article on a performer should have a discography section, and that when that section gets too long it is moved out of the article in Summary style, which means leaving a short section in the parent article pointing to the new page. Ignore all rules is a strange and wonderful rule which is there to prevent rules from hindering the development of the project - it's worth reading What "Ignore all rules" means as IAR can be misunderstood. In this case IAR doesn't apply.

I am open to an argument that every article should be considered as an individual article, and that if a decision can be demonstrated to be useful and effective for a particular article then what happens on other articles doesn't matter, and that guidelines are there for the general good, but specific cases can have over-riding concerns. So I am looking for persuasive arguments for the reason that a standard feature has been removed from this article.

The main argument for not having a summary style discography section is that there are already two templates on the page. However, these templates do not provide a link to the useful and excellent Madonna discography, nor do they provide the specific discography section that regular users of the encyclopedia have come to expect. This will mean that editors will be wanting to place such a section in the article, and there will be future edit wars and instability.

My view is that a summary style discography section should be in the article. If the editor(s) concerned in removing the summary style discography section accept this explanation, then we can move on. If they feel there are valid reasons for not having a summary style discography section, then please put them here and we can debate the issue. If no valid reasons are put forward in the next 24 hours then it can be assumed that the summary style discography section may be restored to the article.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. Discography summary made the page too long. So no such section is needed. Anmsd even if we add one there is no content short enough to fit here. And the template has a link to discography. Vikrant 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here they are. In the second one I put the link recently. First one has had it since long. Vikrant 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed before and - as I indicated, and trust me on this - it WILL be discussed again and again. That was part of the rationale I gave for why there should be a summary style discography section - people expect there to be one, and if there isn't one, then they will want to put one in. I also pick up that you are not clear on what a summary style discography section is when you say that it makes the article too long. I'll put one into the article so that you can see that it is not long, and that it is clear and helpful (which is what is wanted). Please let me know what you think about the summary style discography section, and if you continue to object to it.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna and Grammys
Anyone? It is worth mentioning how many she has won so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How many are they? And any good source for the number? (IMDb or fansites will not do.) Vikrant 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna has received 6th Grammys- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_achievements_for_Madonna 1992-Best Long-form Video 1999-Best Pop album, Best Short-form Video and Best Dance Recording 2000-Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media 2007-Best Electronic/Dance Album

By NEIL STRAUSS Published: February 25, 1999 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFD61F3DF936A15751C0A96F958260 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In total, Madonna has won 9 Grammys from 1992 to present. Alkclark (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

36 Top 10 hits on the Billboard Hot 100
The achievement of 36 Top 10 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 is not just a feat for "rock" artists but it pertains to "any artist in the rock era." It looks like the editors are not familiar when the rock era started. Could somebody read the links given above and read what it was stated there - the most for any artist in the rock era. Somebody's making the current statement a lot confusing by saying "the most for any rock artist" cause it's actually a record for any artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Vikrant 14:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion of the word "rock", but are we supposed to add, the most for any artist in the rock era? That's what the achievement is all about and as what stated in the article's link on Billboard. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have said before. Rock era is not encyclopedic language. Vikrant 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe what the fellow is trying to say is that the achievement is not all about tying a record 36 Top 10 hits w/ Elvis Presley but it's about a feat of having the most for any artist in the history of the Billboard chart. Maybe adding that phrase would make the intro way a lot better that what's in it right now.  Diphosphate8 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but avoid words like "fellow" next time. Vikrant 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"I have said before." is not a complete sentence. And why isn't 'rock era' encyclopaedic (sic) language? By the way, Wikipedia is a joke, and you are one of the clowns, Vikrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.64.177 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we put Madonna's 39th #1 hits from the Billboard Hot Dance Club Airplay chart? http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Hot+Dance+Club+Play —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/chart_beat/bonus_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003834118 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Section names clean-up, etc.
Many of the sections were retitled with poor summary. For instance: "Artistic development and Like A Prayer controversy", is pretty ridiculous when throughout those entire years there were millions of controversies. To make one the stand-out, is merely an opinion, not a fact. The same goes for "...and the crucifix controversy". The crucifix controversy, again, was a moot point during that period of time. I cleaned them up, and went back to the basic summary we had before for those particular years.

Also, a few of the photos were irrelevant, or were adding more than the amount that is needed on Wiki. I believe I removed two. The David Banda controversy, included a photo from a protest that happened during Halloween night. A protest that never even received coverage. Please don't add photographs just to fill up the page. It becomes cluttered, and harder to read. The current crop is just enough. Let's keep the page clean, and precise.

The people who have added sources to the text, it's immensely appreciated!!! Thanks. Maddyfan (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That protest image is not just to fill up the page. It is a relevant event. Vikrant 15:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And coverage is not necessary. Its purpose is perfectly relevant to article. (What coverage does the Evita premiere image have?) The Drowned image was a hoaxed licence so good you removed it. Vikrant 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And what images are "more than the amount that is needed on Wiki?" Just fair use and none of them are here. Vikrant 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some info to clarify
In the article it says in relation to the M clothing line:

"The company has ordered a second and third line for late 2007."[107]

Is there a more appropriate and current statement??

Also, the category listings include 'Juno award winners', and I can't find anything that says she even won one.

Thanks. JKW111 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, nothing is mentioned about Madonna being one of the most successful music acts of all time, and one of the most iconic. You read any history book and she's always in there.

She's 50
She's fifty, not forty-nine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.36.239 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * She's not 50 until August. Maddyfan (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey on section titles and pictures
As there is a dispute going on regarding the Madonna home page regarding the section headings can we please have a discussion in what everyone wants for the sections as they are getting changed again and again. An agreement would be a reasonable outcome. Can we also discuss photographs that are being used, such as the Mexico waxwork photo and adoption protest. I myself would like them removed as I do not feel they are relevant to Madonna and even though they are free use does not make them relevant. I am very open to discussion as there seems to be a lot of warring going on and threats. JWAD —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks JWAD. On Section titles - I'm not against the sections being descriptive of events in those periods, but the particular events highlighted (eg crucifix controversy) are probably not the right ones. In the absence of consensus of how to describe each section, Its safer to go with dates or album references. Otherwise, could use decades as in unreleased Madonna songs.


 * On pictures, I have already said that the waxwork photo is not relevant, and does not improve the article. I'm relaxed about the protest photo - it is connected to the issue, although maybe someone could offer an alternative of something more notable than "a new worker". JKW111 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that album references as used in the unreleased Madonna songs is the best suggestion. Other artists pages such as Janet Jackson use this. My suggestion is:
 * 1982-1985 Madonna debut album and Like a Virgin era
 * 1986-1991 True Blue and Blond Ambition Tour era
 * 1992-1997 Erotica, Sex book and Evita era
 * 1998-2002 Ray of Light and Drowned World Tour era
 * 2003-2006 American Life and Confessions era
 * JWAD was added at 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1998-2002 is extremely small and notreally needed. Vikrant 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the protest photo. About the statue, can you all show me some strict rule on editing that forbids this? Statues help many persons' articles and this is a VA! Vikrant 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On sections - I think the above list has too many sections. It is worth exploring a more meaningful breakup. (In the longer term, it's worth exploring separating this content into a music career section, separate to a film career section, an author section, and 'other activities'.)


 * On pictures: While it is true that there are no strict rules regarding pictures other than copyrighted ones, there is a common sense overlay that should be applied. (There are no strict rules in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean every edit to an article will or should stay.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, a vanity site, a photo gallery, etc.. Pictures should be relevant to the article in that they illustrate something about the subject of the article. I'm sure you would agree that if I drew a picture of Madonna and took a photo of it, that doesn't mean I should put it in this article. The following guidance is taken from WP:IMAGES: Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text... Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article. Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic.


 * Overall, in line with WP:CON, we need to reach agreement on whether a proposed picture makes the article better. For the wax picture, I say it doesn't. It is not notable, is not significant in relation to Madonna, doesn't assist a reader in understanding the subject of the article, and makes the article unnecessarily over-crowded. I'm happy for someone to explain why it should be included other than its a free image. JKW111 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Appropriate Wording
How come in the portion of this article when it talks about Madonna's dealing with Pepsi, the word "black" leads to a link when using the phrase 'black man' but the word "white" does not lead to a link when using the phrase 'white woman'? It's obvious someone white wrote that portion, as they feel the need to have a link directing you to what a black person is. Now its not that I'm upset that there's a link to "black" in the article but if you're going to have a link for "black", you must have one for "white". If you're not going to have the link available for "white", then it should not be there for "black". We are all the same, so it must remain consistent in our writing.


 * Done JKW111 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the fifth paragraph under Relationships, the phrase "Madonna gave birth to his child" needs to be changed to "Madonna gave birth to their child". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.186.212 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Removed ownership of the child altogether. JKW111 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1992-2002
that is totaly off and needs to be broken down that is to long of a stretch of her career and she under went to many changes musicaly and fashion wise to be lumped into a 10 year period is way off it should be broken down from 1992 - 1997 than 1998-2002 would be more accurate and proper--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no rule on how long sections should be. The current/past section breaks have always been arbitrary, so where the breaks occur is largely personal preference. Lets agree on a structure before making any more changes. JKW111 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont really have a huge problem with the structure,she has had a very long and gone through many fashion changes,music style chnages trials and tribulations,and i have no problem with the other breakdowns of epoch of her career like 82-85 86-91 etc i think its is very accurate but in the middle of those you have this lump of 10 years 1992 till 2002 when during this time many chnages had happened in her career during this time and it just does not seem to mesh and should be broken down alongs these lines 92-97 to exclaim her erotica era and evita roll than 98-2002 which she transformed her image and sound again into ray of light and music etc,--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

She's not really "British"
In the initial paragraph, it says Madonna is "British." Technically she's an American living in the UK, with a British husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.211.198 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that she is UK resident and has been married to a Briton for eight years, she can very well have become a naturalised British Citizen (which she would have been able to do after three years). The use of the word 'technically' is always quite amusing on Wikipedia. She is a UK resident US Citizen, to my knowledge, but she is also completely capable of being a British Citizen by this point, though I haven't heard any specific comments about this (unlike with Kevin Spacey). Roche-Kerr (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock N Roll Hall of Fame?
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet...why was she inducted into the R&R HOF when she has never performed rock music? Smart Mark Greene (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rock music encompasses just about everything and remember that the "rock era" started in the '50s! Don't take it literally. Madonna's music straddles the pop, dance and rock worlds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Pop
in case editors want better sources for this claim should the article be nominated for FAC:


 * Andrew Morton. Madonna. Macmillan, 2002. ISBN 0312983107.


 * ...the record company found itself in the enviable position of promoting the newly crowned Queen of Pop...


 * Carol Clerk. Madonnastyle. Omnibus Press, 2002. ISBN 0711988749.




 * Mary Cross. Madonna: A Biography. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. ISBN 0313338116.


 * ...The year 1984 was unbelievable for Madonna. Indisputably, she was now the Queen of Pop. ...


 * Miklitsch, Robert. From Hegel to Madonna. SUNY Press, 1998. ISBN 0791435393.


 * Kellner admits near the end of his analysis that Anderson is an avant-grade performance artist and Madonna the reigning queen of pop...


 * Santiago Fouz-Hernández, Freya Jarman-Ivens. Madonna's Drowned Worlds: New Approaches to Her Cultural. Ashgate Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0754633721.


 * ...the so called 'Queen of Pop' elludes both followers and critics by shifting her image before stable identificatory paradigms and criticisms can summarily describe her.


 * Tisa Lewis, Susan M. Shaw. Girls Rock!: Fifty Years of Women Making Music. University Press of Kentucky, 2004. ISBN 0813123100.


 * The queen of pop had evolved into an urban cowgirl...

all of these books are available for preview on google and may contain useful information to improve the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2c worth of PR bits and pieces
Looks pretty comprehensive. The only thing I didn't see was much talk of her succession of personas (not as defined as, say, David Bowie, but there was a sense, I recall, of the trashy clothes a la Desperately Seeking Susan and the first two albums which gave way to the platinum blonde and neater look for several years, and latterly the more 'casual' look of Ray of Light etc. Not a biggie though and the article is pretty big already...

I'll look at prose soon :) Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is a VA and WP:SIZE cant be so strict here. Ultra! 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * During The Virgin Tour, she wore the rosary around her neck - I am not catholic and am not too familair with how rosaries should be referred to but shouldn't this be 'a' rosary? Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since her debut in 1982, Madonna has released many chart-topping albums and singles, and has sold more than 200 million albums worldwide - the trick is to use the word 'album' only once in this sentence for brilliant prose....Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 09:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ultra! 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to fix the Guiness World Records links in the lead; link at first not second. Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most-successful - why the hyphen?


 * ''After being convinced by her ballet teacher, ...really needs an infinitive verb there (i.e. convinced to do something) how about "Her ballet teacher convinced (or persuaded) her to pursue a dance career, so she..." or "After her ballet teacher convinced (or persuaded) her to pursue a dance career, so she..." Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * a new wave label belonging to Warner Bros. Records. - belonging to sounds a teeny bit casual..I am not sure how else to phrase it however. Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Madonna felt Lucas would be the producer to get the best vocals from her -clunky - " bring out the best vocals"? or something else?

Spelling Error.
"Madonna's eighth studio album, Music was released in 2000 and continued the electronica theme of Ray of Light, this time it embrassed dance and house music "

Embraced is misspelled as "embrassed" This is under the 1998-2002 section.
 * It's been fixed now. Acalamari 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocco Ritchie was NOT baptized Catholic as the Wiki article claims
I have encountered this phenomenom several time with Wikipedia in which a claim is made and cited and then when you read the linked citation the original claim is wrong or inaccurate. The article cited says that Madonna's son was baptized in the Church of Scotland by a woman priest. Although she was raised Catholic, clearly she did not have her son baptized in that same Church and the Wiki article is misleading. (Muckrake (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Muckrake, you are absolutely correct. The Church of Scotland (although they wouldn't necessarily refer to themselves in such terms) is essentially a reformed branch of presbyterianism, which is most definitely not catholic. Just look at the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots and you will see that this is far, far from Catholicism -- wars were fought over these differences. I have removed this sentence from the Criticism section. Wilford Nusser (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation Name
I have placed Madonna's confirmation name (Veronica) back into the article. It has always been included with Madonna's name (in press releases, biographies, etc.) since 1987. Note: Her confirmation name was chosen by her mother when Madonna was 2, that is why she has a personal connection to it. She did not choose it in her teens as one editor suggests. Alkclark (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

- Not moved - clearly opposed by most editors. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal was to move Madonna (entertainer) to Madonna

Madonna (entertainer) is viewed almost 20 times as often as the Madonna, Mary (mother of Jesus). When people go to Wikipedia to look up Madonna (entertainer) they should not have to go through a disambig page 100% of the time when 95% of the time they are looking for this page. After all she did sell 200 million albums. Add For the Madonna see Mary (mother of Jesus). For other uses of Madonna see Madonna (disambiguation) at the top. There are over 5 times as many links to Madonna (entertainer) than there to Mary (mother of Jesus), including over 100 to Madonna, with all of those intending to point to the entertainer. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think this is a good illustration that hit-counts don't determine primary use. This has been discussed numerous times in the past: see Talk:Madonna. Sam Staton (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what does, in your mind, establish WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? The guidelines there say either links or consensus of editors ("this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings"). Madonna (the singer) wins on both counts. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And where is the consensus of the editors of those articles? older ≠ wiser 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are joking. "Significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings" is patently obvious from the page view stats. Madonna (entertainer) was viewed 406,460 times in March 2008, Mary (mother of Jesus) 20,035 times. No one, even you, can dispute that Madonna (entertainer) is significantly more commonly searched for and read. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm certainly not joking. Clearly you do not understand WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. It says nothing about page views. There is nothing at all "patently obvious" about using an unproven statistical tool as the sole measure for determining primary topic status. Everything depends on consensus. If the title of the article is an actual problem, then why are you the only person supporting the move? And indeed, so far as I can tell, there has never been any serious proposal to move the article about the entertainer to the undisambiguated title. Sometime WP:COMMONSENSE is more important that using unimportant statistical measures to bolster misinterpretations of guidelines. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This has already been discussed at lenght at Talk:Madonna. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - This is not a fan site, it is an encyclopaedia and I guarantee you, 19 of every 20th more person looking for the singer will be a fan. They should have to go through a disambiguation page. After all, Mary did give birth to the most important human figure in the most followed religion in the history of the world. There are over five times as much emphasis of importance to Mary's prevalence in history than that of Madonna (entertainer). 76.167.156.93 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the guideline is to make this encyclopedia useful. Making someone click on a disambig page instead of getting to the page they are looking for is not helpful. In 10 or 20 years when no one remembers the singer and page views and links drop to a majority looking for the Madonna you can move it back. Right now 20 times as many people are interested in reading about the singer than about Mary. I wouldn't even object if you moved it back when only 2 times as many are still looking for the singer. Don't be cruel. Guidelines are written for a reason. Use them. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the guideline is to make the encyclopaedia useful. Yet, we have to make someone click on a disambig page instead of getting to the page they are looking for such as the Virgin Mary. FYI, we're not asking permission to keep the article where it is so it's not as if we're negotiating when we are going to move it back. Right now, 20x as many people are interested in reading about the Virgin Mary for research purposes and the ones looking for the singer are looking for a fan site. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Things that are most relevant to the context will be dealt with using the most emphasis. Don't be cruel. Guidelines are written for a reason. Use them. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, an exemplary case for why such solisistic data like page views, without other supporting external data or rationale, is relatively useless for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Solisistic isn't a word. Did you mean "definitive"? And why would any external data or rationale be relevant? All we are talking about is making Wikipedia easier to use by the largest number of people. Historical importance is totally irrelevant. All I care about is making Wikipedia easier to use. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meant solipsistic. External data is the only thing that is actually relevant. In much the same way that we cannot use wikipedia articles as sources for other articles, it is foolhardy to attempt to use Wikipedia page views as a gauge for primary topic status. At the very best it can only be a very poor indicator, and without any supporting external data or rationale is meaningless. older ≠ wiser 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See now you are speaking as if you were the Pope or someone. Of course to some people Mary is more important than Madonna, but the issue is not who is more important (you might not even find anyone who thought that Madonna was more important than Mary), but which article are more people reading and how can we make it easier for them to find it. Nothing else matters. The issue is not what is the primary topic status "in your mind", but what is the primary usage, which is easily measured by counting page views, and nothing else matters. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Say what? I actually care little about either. The issue is that "Madonna" is unequivocally an ambiguous title and except for you, no one thinks the simple title should be other than a disambiguation page. Oh, and a primary topic is not determined by counting page views. Never has been, and until there is some consensus about whether the data provided by the stats tool is meaningul, it should not be considered as the sole factor for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why does the move come up so often? Obviously a lot of others have noticed that it's a problem. And I probably care less than you about either subject, just for the record. My only concern is to make Wikipedia more efficient. Page views did not become available until recently, but the guideline has always been "more commonly searched for and read" - doesn't that sound just a teeny bit like "page views" to you? 199.125.109.105 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC) By the way, I fail to see any "discussion", only edit warring. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An idiosyncratic conception of efficiency is not the primary goal of disambiguation. The primary guidance has always been that when there is a significant question about what a term refers to is should be a disambiguation page. This has always been (and always should be) a matter for discussion and consensus and not a simplistic counting of page views. older ≠ wiser 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the primary goal is simply to insure that everyone can find the article that they are looking for. In the case where there is a primary usage, that name is used for the article name and (disambiguation) is used as the disambiguation page. Where there is no primary usage the name is used as the disambiguation. Such is not the case for Madonna, where there is clearly a primary usage. However, in 10 or 20 years (or longer) no one will remember the singer and so if you want you can use Madonna as a redirect to Madonna (entertainer). 199.125.109.105 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are making the claim that the entertainer should be the primary topic for the term "Madonna". So far, no one agrees with you. And that is because despite the popularity of the entertainer, the consensus is that the term is inherently ambiguous and no one topic should be at the the simple title. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more political than that. Obviously some people can't bear the thought of Madonna redirecting to the singer, even though that is the most logical conclusion. Now try writing a rule for that one. In the absence of such a rule, existing guidelines dictate using Madonna for the singer. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not at all what "the rules" say. The guidelines indicate that consensus determines when a primary topic is appropriate. Mechanistic counts of links or page views or google hits are bits of information that can be used in discussion, but such info is merely fodder for consideration and do not overrule consensus. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Madonna should be a dab page. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Firstly, some of the discussion on this topic has not been constructive. Our personal thoughts on the importance of one person or another is not the basis for wikipedia construction. It should be remembered that the primary criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, as I don't think we need to spend time arguing who is more notable. Where a term has multiple notable meanings, it should be a disambiguation page. I know there are heaps of pages on wikipedia that go direct to one use and reference the other, but this is more because of the order of when articles were created rather than any consistent policy. JKW111 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The rightful owner of the name Madonna is the Virgin Mary. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for at least participating in this discussion, although I admit that it was more an issue of Spock logic vs. Yuck factor in making the decision. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is archived, but I'd like to add my two cents - I'm not enthusiastic for the move but I wouldn't oppose it. Most of the comments above doesn't make sense to me. Simply because there has been previous discussion is not grounds to "strong oppose" when there is a reason given. The primary usage of Madonna is the singer, simply because it has twenty times more hits than the mother of Jesus, and few people refer to the mother of Jesus as Madonna (mostly "Mary"). When somebody says "Madonna" in real life, we (or at least I) naturally assume it to be the singer. That's how you define primary usage. Herunar (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the primary argument as to why this shouldn't have been moved is due to some fictional character's supposed 'rightful ownership'. I think some people need to learn that religion != fact, and Wikipedia is not exactly the most appropriate place to push for selective guideline enforcement based solely on a few people's belief in some sordid fairy tale. I believe this move request should be re-opened. 70.180.190.39 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture
© All rights reserved. Ultra! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Madonna great pic
 * isn't this picture good for introduction in the article? Alecsdaniel (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * yup that IS a great Madonna pic; ALSO, try this one

/s/ bigconez gobblezwilly 99.162.178.56 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Madonna book "Sex" gobble pic

Filmography
Did Madonna act in any films before? She had a minor role in Bond film Die Another Day. Does that warrant a Filmography section? -Spansign (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh HELLO she's been in like more than a dozen starring roles. PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean if she's an actress and there are tons of information on her here then why is there no Filmography section? -Spansign (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a better pic of her please, she's the queen of image, and that one does not do her favors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieGuy38 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Front page pic
I know this is a boring issue, but what is the point of the hordes of photogs taking pics of her 24/7 if those pics can't be used? Madonna deserves better than that weird concert shot on the front page. Why not a studio portrait? PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie
Guy was asked about her birth name in that interview. But Madonna truly added Ritchie to her name.

That's Mrs. Material Girl to you: Madonna has officially changed the name on her American Express card to Mrs. Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie. "I think she likes being called Mrs. Ritchie," Madonna spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg tells the New York Daily News. So remember that next time you see her.

http://archive.salon.com/people/col/reit/2001/04/23/npmon/index.html http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22375920-5001021,00.html

Jason Engel from AbsoluteMadonna.com confirmed it to me years ago. Israell (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

F-A-N C-R-U-F-T
OMFG was anyone reading the intro? Like a Virgin (song) on some Rolling Stone list apparently warranted a mention in the INTRO, because it was a "feat for a 70s-oriented rock magazine". Also a R.S. list about "great albums" and her various placements on that list. Some R.S. list placement does nto need mention in the intro. I mean WTF people! Please keep this fan cruft OUT of the intro. The intro must be concise, straight forward and needing only basic facts about her career - the rest of the article is for cutesy stuff like lists and "feats". PLEASE, let's keep the intro basic! PatrickJ83 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not write all that stuff but why is the Michael Jackson intro that long, then? It would need some editing too. Madonna's was just fine. Israell (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:FANCRUFT, such information would be regarded... as [un]encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole.


 * While the absence of her accomplishments (which do include awards or honors given by various establishments such as rolling stone the RIAA and the Rock and Roll hall of fame) would not damage the article, it cannot be considered FANCRUFT since non of these organizations are exclusive to Madonna. The LEAD is meant to be an overview of her entire career and that does include her professional accomplishments as well as any song or album which either gave her critical acclaim/failure or dramatically impacted the recording industry or pop culture. There should also be a small overview of her rise to stardom (how did she start out?). Madonna has also had enough longevity to have a "Legacy" section in the article. Please remember to be more civil when bringing up discussions on the talk page. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really hope you're not telling ME to be "civil". I'm tired of this nice-nice-nice crap on this website, this is why nothing can get done. And who cares what MJ's article looks like? This is Madonna, not MJ. A professional, well written entry on Madonna (miles away, pardon the pun, from the present look of the Madonna entry) wouldn't have sales of the Immaculate Collection in the intro. WHY OH WHY OH WHY must the intro be stuffed with fan cruft (SALES of a particular disc IS FAN CRUFT) instead of something clean and concise? THIS sort of crap is why "Madonna" lost its featured article status. And will someone please shut "Israell" up, everytime I try to fix this article he rushes in shouting about "other" articles and how they look. BADA BOOM PatrickJ83 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes- I was telling you to be civil, and I will remind you again. I can agree the number of sales isn't required for the lead, but the impact on any single or album which is notable to madonna's career or the recording industry should be mentioned in the lead. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the Immaculate Collection's sales are NOT appropriate for the intro. "Madonna is the most successful female artist in the UK" is MORE than sufficient, and then hyper link to the citation. This constant insistence upon stuffing sales figures, feats and hits into the intro seems more appropriate for someone like Mariah Carey, who feels a need to constantly emphasize her hit singles and supposed "biggest selling artist" crap above anything else. Madonna's fans should take the high road. LAWD. PatrickJ83 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't read what I said- I said I agreed the number of sales in NOT necessary for the introduction. Sales are not the only thing that make an album or single notable to an artist's career. I am not an expert of Madonna- nor do I claim to be- nor do I consider myself a fan- but the introduction should have some detail on the evolution of her music from her debut to today. For instance, how her first two album had limited success but True Blue is regarded as her "breakthrough" album. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

LEAD
I can agree the LEAD needs a lot of work. It doesn't flow very smoothly.

according to WP:LEAD ''Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.''

considering the length of the article, this LEAD should be at least three paragraphs- the first of which should discuss a bit of her early life (before madonna became MADONNA the entertainer) and her early music career. All of her acting roles are currently missing from the lead as well as her notable albums and soundtracks. Take a look at Celine Dion John Mayer R.E.M. and Kylie Minogue which are featured articles on music artists. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ALSO missing from the intro...
Is talk about Madonna's Raising Malawi and her philanthropic work. A reason I get so riled about this is because for the last TWO YEARS I have been trying to improve this article piecemeal, and each time I get it to a good place, some Madgelicker comes in and stuffs her record sales back in. FORGET about the darn sales listing! Like I said, Madonna's article does not need this Mariah Carey-esque constant emphasis of record sales. Madonna's legacy is solid and can be eloquently written about - new Madonna fans or those who don't know about her, or want to learn about her in a non fan-site way, don't need the Immaculate Collection's UK sales rundown thrown in their face the moment they click onto the page. PatrickJ83 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LEAD continued
I agree the the intro is poorly written. Why do we need to know the name of "True Blue"? Why do we need to know the names of her movies (besides Evita)? Why do we need to know she is behind Barbra Streisand? All that stuff is unnecessary. How about some of you fans come up with a better intro? I'm not fan so I'm limited on my knowledge. But I will try here:

Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie (born August 16, 1958), known artistically as Madonna, is an American singer-songwriter, dancer, musician, record producer and Golden Globe winning actress. Regarded as "one of the greatest pop acts of all time", she has been dubbed the "Queen of Pop" by the media.

After coming to New York City aspiring to become a dancer, Madonna took parts in various gigs, joining music groups and playing nightclups before being signed (insert when she was signed and by who). She quickly rose to stardom following the release of her debut album in 1981. SHe became one of the most successful artists of the 1980s, while incoprating religious, politcal, and scoial themes into her music to make statements and push buttons. Though her career cooled off following the scandal that surrounded her Erotica and Sex Book release, Madonna continued her music career as well as her movie career including her Golden Globe Nominated role as Evita in Evita. She saw a career resurgence (or comeback) with the release of the criticall acclaimed Ray Of Light album. Madonna was inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame in 2008.

Madonna is ranked by the Recording Industry Association of America as the "Best Selling Female Rock Artist of the Twentieth Century" and the second top-selling female artist in the United States with 63 million certified albums. According to Guinness World Records, she is the "World’s most successful female recording artist of all time" [7] and the top earning female singer in the world with an estimated net worth of over $400 million,[8] having sold over 200 million albums worldwide

...Again, I'm no fan so bare with me. What do you think? Shoop85 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Shoop85


 * It's a good trim, but the LEAD still need to acknowledge an overview of her studio albums AND her filmography. Madonna's film career is almost as notable as her recording career- it has to be mentiond in the LEAD. Keep in mind the policy on WP:LEAD- you have to sum up the person's entire biography. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * just as a reference for all editors: from WP:LEAD


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article...


 * When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient.


 * Concerning SIZE:


 * The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:


 * {| class="wikitable"

!&lt; 15,000 characters !around 32 kilobytes !&gt; 30,000 characters
 * one or two paragraphs
 * &#160; two or three paragraphs &#160;
 * three or four paragraphs
 * }
 * }


 * As it stands now, the LEAD is actually decent in terms of policy, though heavy copy-editing would benefit it greatly. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  10:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant?
In the United Kingdom, she is the most successful female in the album and singles chart history, having sold 3.6 million copies of her compilation The Immaculate Collection and accomplishing sixty-one top ten singles, thirteen of which were #1. In 2008, she surpassed Elvis Presley as the artist with most top ten hits in the history of the Billboard Hot 100 charts, with thirty-seven top ten singles. She is also the most successful singles artist on the United World Chart with thirteen #1 and twenty-three Top 10 singles. Israell (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
There's much more to her legacy than having beaten world records... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.168.237 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to rain on anybodys parade or anything, but isn't Legacy mostly used as a header to a section when the person is deceased? fritte (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, take Michael Jackson, his legacy to music has already been set whether he dies now or lives another 20 years. They both already have a legacy. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Anyone who's made a dramatic impact on our culture has a legacy section- living or not. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1982–1985: Madonna debut album and Like A Virgin
even though she has six kids in their 20's In 1982,

This is taken directly from the page. Madonna does/did not have six kids in their 20s by 1982 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.115.168 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality
Unfortunately this artice has really deteriated, it used to be better than the Michael Jackson but has since slipped behind dramatically. Does anyone work on this article regularly? I might suggest a per review. The article might need reassesment to see if its still worthy of GA states. -- Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put the article up for reassessment to see if its still to GA standard. Please follow the link at the top of this talk page. -- Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More than sales
The lead has lots of albums sales facts but should include some major tour achievement and perhaps her three theater plays.

Billboard reported that her 2006 Confessions Tour holds the record for the highest grossing concert tour by a female artist.

Madonna appeared in theather plays Goose and Tom-Tom, Speed The Plow and Up For Grabs.

Israell (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Definately no plays, i didnt even know she did any, its not major. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 01:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to tell people things they don't know yet, in addition to what they know already. The more comprehensive it is, the better it is. Besides, I just noticed that the article doesn't even mention any of the plays, and there were 3. Israell (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also taking out negative stuff so that you can put more fan cruft in is not good. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bookkeeperoftheoccult: "Golden Raspberry Awards are quite literally a joke. I dont think it should be mentioned in the LEAD. The preceeding sentence already states she has unsucessful roles"

R2, You see! LOL! Those awards are more of a parody or humour than anything else. Israell (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything not sourced will be removed quickly. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just added the plays to the body of the article. Israell (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you dont source those plays they will be removed within the next half hour. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Didn't I highlight the names of the plays or writers? Please, give me some time to source them. Israell (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's policy on those awards? Any significance? Hey! I'm not trying to sound conceited but Speed-The-Plow is an acclaimed play Madonna was in. It was the start of her friendship with Sandra Bernhard in the late 1980s. And there were 2 other plays. You're now saying those awards have more significance. My goal was NOT to glamourize her but make the article more comprehensive. By the way, nobody owns an article and those awards are not major neither. I'm adding the plays in the lead. If you disagree, let's set up a vote. Israell (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth Or Dare as well as and Arthur And The Invisbles were box-office hits also, even though not regular movies but a documentary and an animation movie.

So, I'd add them to the lead as well as the plays and the very much significant Confessions Tour achievement but since I sense a brainless edit war I'm gonna wait for more opinions. :) Israell (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead is already long and fan crufty enough. There is no more room for you ideas in the lead and they are not that important either. They are mentioned in the article which is enough. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Erotica's chart position.
In the section of the article regarding the Sex book and Erotica album, it says that Erotica (the song, that is) went to #2 in the U.S. However, that's only for the Hot 100 Airplay chart; on the Hot 100 chart, it peaked at #3, unless I'm mistaken. Not really that much of a difference, however it is worth changing/clarifying. 12.42.198.2 (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Statue of Madonna in Pacentro
The statue of the entertainer Madonna was never built in Pacentro. Certain town leaders suggested it, but it was vehemently opposed by the Church and many of the citizens of the town. It was seen as sacrilege since one of the town's patrons is the real Madonna, the Virgin Mary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.234 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * it is built. Ultra! 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that such a statue is NOT in existence in the town of Pacentro. My family is from there and I have been there numerous times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.105 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Movies
"Although her performances have mostly been critically panned,[citation needed] her role in Evita (1996) earned her a Golden Globe award." MOSTLY out of 22 movies is not quite accurate.

"Although she's been in a number of unsuccessful movies,[citation needed] her role in Evita (1996) earned her a Golden Globe award." Is THAT good? Israell (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

¿It´s real that Madonna want make a movie about The Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.179.190.72 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Discography
I don't understand why the discography link was deleted. Is one of the most important thing in an singer page. This Is annoying.
 * To cut size per the GAR. go to her 2 navtemplates at the bottom. Please sign your posts in future. Ultra! 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-entries in the France Singles Chart
This link is a bit confusing. Do you think it's really real? How could a song so old like Erotica re-entry the chart? Not to mention the presence of Hung Up, Sorry, Love Profusion, Hollywood & American Life...Alecsdaniel (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's it got to do with this article? The link isn'e even being used! Ultra! 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting that a song released in early '90 is still active in a singles chart. I asked here since it might took some time before someone will see the question at "Erotica" 's discussion page.Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultra, civility please. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Divorce
Someone needs to change her personal life b/c she filed for divorce
 * Its only a tabloid rumour at the moment. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 02:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's leading to Rodriquez's wife divorcing him: . This will quite possibly be a massive story in baseball, given what his wife could reveal if there's a court battle... dunno about Madonna though. --Rividian (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all very confusing right now, some sources say they filed for divorce. Others have Madonna and her Mother-In-Law denying it. Right now, it can't be stated as a fact that they're getting divorced. It can only be said that they're rumored to be getting one.

-JJVrocks (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And we don't report rumors, we are not a tabloid. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Warren Beatty?
it says she started dating warren beatty in 1989 but says nothing about the breakup. her brother said it lasted for a year and three months. shouldn't that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookmeupinla (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we add something about her brother's book?
It was published. Became a huge scandal. Sort of like when the nude pictures of her surfaced. Perhaps this should be added to the Personal Life section? 76.124.165.253 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Filmography
Why is there no filmography? Trevor GH5 (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

was this article written by her pr people
there is absolutely no mention of the many controversies that this particular artist has been involved in. the controversies page is gone so shouldn't this be here? i mean there are so many controversies that this artist has been involved in why is there no mention on wikipedia? it's not slander to merely mention controversies that have been widely reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.104.114 (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What controversies page? Hyacinth (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church
This article states that Madonna got some opposition from the Catholic Church. That would be news to me, so I inserted a request for a source. It was removed without explanation. What representative of the Catholic Church ever reprimanded, opposed, or even criticized Madonna? Where is the evidence of that? Unless someone can produce such evidence, that claim must be deleted.Thefactis (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 05:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That source isn't online, just like the source for her move to NY to pursue ballet which turned out not to suppor that assertion. An online link would be preferable.Thefactis (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No usually book references are considered more reliable on wikipedia. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Better is a source that's both reliable and readily checkable. Have you actually seen that fact about the Vatican in this book? If not, you'd be well-advised to find a good source. Thefactis (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Books are considered much better sources on wikipedia, move on. By all means ADD another source to go with it if you feel the need. I'm done with this discussion, you don't understand the policies of wikipedia. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no, if you check our policy & guidelines you'll see that it's not books but peer-reviewed books that are considered better. This one isn't peer-reviewed is it? And have you actually seen the page cited? Thefactis (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all published books have been reviewed and edited. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait. You mean you think "peer-reviewed" is the same as "reviewed"? Tell me you're joking.Thefactis (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church's antipathy toward Madonna is well documented both on-line and in the article (including John Paul II telling Italian fans not to go to her concert; and let's not forget the Like A Prayer video issue).  -- David  Shankbone  17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead photo
I photoshopped the lead photo. I don't know if it is an improvement. The original, unphotoshopped Madonna is here at Flickr. -- David  Shankbone  17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that it says she started in 1982, but she was doing music in 1979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.150.112 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also known as"
I think that you should add "The Queen of Pop" and "Madge" to the "Also known as" section. The reason why is because almost everybody refers to her as her title of Queen of Pop and they also call her "Madge" most of the time too instead of "Madonna". For those of you who don't know, "Madge" is short for "Your MADGEsty". Should she be given a section (not A section, just under where it says "Also Known as") entitled "Nick names" just like Michael Jackson? Another nick-name that should be added is "Nonni" which was given to her by her father.
 * "The Queen of Pop" and "Madge" are not legal alternative names or official stage names so no. Also there is no "Nick names" section on the Michael Jackson article. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section
Since when are Latin American people a minority group? --194.144.36.199 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. — Realist  2  13:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)