Talk:Madonna/Archive03

message: Why was this title changed from Madonna(Entertainer) to Madonna(Artiste)? Doesn't the title entertainer cover all her ventures? (I.E. Singer, Author, Actress) 
Oh and could someone explain the definition of an artiste?Fritte 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artiste? 

message: Although it may be true, why has someone put that Madonna is the fourth best-selling singer worlwide in the intro? Unless we find a reliable source you cannot put that. 
=== Why make any changes...===
Why bother making changes or trying to add and improve this article when it seems 1 person is just running around changing EVERYTHING back and reverting any changes back to HIS version, I guess he owns the article, and I will not bother anymore.  I added several items, her horse accident, her grammy performance, announcing the tour on Ellen, her hernia operation, and improved the Confessions tour article, and I just keep getting told not to edit anymore because its all spam!  I'm sick of it, let him own the article then!
=== INTRO- needs improving ===
Ok, the problem with the Intro is that Madonna has not sold 'an estimated 120M albums' but an estimated 210M- The Guinness Book of recoprds has had the 120M figure since 1998 and the data was collected from her 1996 figures (before Ray of Light and Evita, to get the idea). Only in the US, EU (former EEC countries- not the whole modern 25) canada and Australia, Madonnna had cerifications for 155M albums in 2002 (before American Life). Only US+EU add up to 135 platinums to date. 
You should make clear that that is the data in the Guinness Book of Records, and that it is rather old, otherwise it seems to clash with WB's 200M in 2005 (PS the Guinness data comes from he IFPI and WB itself- there cannot be such a great discrepancy). Remember Madonna has appeared in the Guinness Book since 1998, data was collected the year before that (1997)and was obviously per 1996.
Ok- Madonna is NOT French Canadian. Italian-American, Okay, but she is not a Canadian citizen.  She is of French-Canadian descent, but is not technically a French Canadian. -24.215.253.143 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Ok, the problem with the Intro is that Madonna has not sold 'an estimated 120M albums' but an estimated 210M- The Guinness Book of recoprds has had the 120M figure since 1998 and the data was collected from her 1996 figures (before Ray of Light and Evita, to get the idea). Only in the US, EU (former EEC countries- not the whole modern 25) canada and Australia, Madonnna had cerifications for 155M albums in 2002 (before American Life). Only US+EU add up to 135 platinums to date. 
You should make clear that that is the data in the Guinness Book of Records, and that it is rather old, otherwise it seems to clash with WB's 200M in 2005 (PS the Guinness data comes from he IFPI and WB itself- there cannot be such a great discrepancy). Remember Madonna has appeared in the Guinness Book since 1998, data was collected the year before that (1997)and was obviously per 1996.
Ok- Madonna is NOT French Canadian. Italian-American, Okay, but she is not a Canadian citizen.  She is of French-Canadian descent, but is not technically a French Canadian. -24.215.253.143 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTRO- needs improving 

message: In reviewing the Madonna article, I have to say that it is poorly written.  Chop full of unnecessary little tidbits and fan-giggly commentary.  I would clean it up, but there appears to be a swat team of editors patrolling this article, who would undoubtedly revert my edits.  
BTW, before anyone accuses me of being otherwise -- I AM a Madonna fan, but this is still an encyclopedia…not a tribute site.  —  NwDavis 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion!  When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Isopropyl 23:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh--hottie 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is a group of people reverting edits to improvements then don't stand for it. They do not own the article. Report them to the admin. This article is pitiful and needs improving. You can vote for the article on the Article Improvement Drive (AID). Rimmers 20:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just as an example. This quote has no place anywhere in any sort of respectable article: "Despite madonna's attempts to appear Left it is clear that her proud materialism and lack of political knowledge make her a Clinton Democrat at best." This is a poor, partisan joke at best and gravely insulting to a great many readers at worst. For this and other reasons this article needs to be cleaned up and the person who made that quote should seriously be under consideration for being locked out. 68.96.255.13 05:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have an issue with strong POV wording, there are ways to handle it. In this case, that wording is unacceptable, and I would advise removing it (I might do so myself). However, we are unable to catch every vandal at Wikipedia, especially people that add subtle POVs to articles. There's just not enough manpower. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly written article

message: "Hits such as "Holiday," "Like a Virgin" and "Like a Prayer" earned her massive success during the 1980s. Further hits followed in the 1990s such as "Vogue," "Take a Bow," and "Frozen." She has also released several hit singles during the 2000s, such as "Music," "American Pie" and "Hung Up.""
....Seems to me this is irrelevant; Madonna's a pop star and is known by the public for her various hits and furthermore this just doesn't seem professional to me; wouldn't it be more prudent to cut this part out and just keep it like this:
....Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone[1] (born August 16, 1958) is a US-American pop singer, dancer, songwriter, producer, actress, and author. She is internationally well known for reinventing her image, creating innovative music videos, and generating controversy in both her work and personal life. She is commonly referred to as the "Queen of Pop." ....
That seems MUCH more concise and to-the-point to me. Who agrees? I think we should trim the fat. PatrickJ83 05:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The opening paragraph 

message: Can someone please do something about the first paragraph? It's just....ugh. I would love to practice what I preach but I dare not for fear of becoming totally addicted...PatrickJ83 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Music" album section 

message: This event, which made the front page of the Business section of the Los Angeles Times among other publications, deserves a little more than one sentence tacked on to the 'American Life' section.
This, to me, is a more important detail of M's career than how many copies blah album sold its first week in stores or what chart position blah single got to on blah chart.PatrickJ83 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one believe, that as far as Madonna's BIOGRAPHY (which this is) goes, the loss of her personally-run record label by her (and its) parent label is a far more important event in her career than something as trivial and silly as sales. Opening-week sales is a tidbit for fans and this is not supposed to be a fan page, but a professional reference. Also IMO sales and the like should be kept to the respective album pages and the important stuff to the main Madonna page. Isn't that why there are seperate pages for her records? IMO "Blah album debuted at #1 in several countries" is more than enough info, "it sold 351,158 its first week in stores" is superfluous. PatrickJ83 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Madonna's sales can be commented on in the opening salvo establishing her as the world's top-selling female artist. Indivdual sales are NOT, I repeat NOT important and inappropriate to the main Madonna page. All that needs to be said is the album debuted at #1, not how many it sold. 10 copies or a million, #1 is #1. And besides being an artist, Madonna is a businesswoman, and Maverick was the incarnation of that. PatrickJ83 23:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Patrick here.  As for the nonsense about "I certainly believe that chart positions and sales are far more important than the loss of the Maverick! Come on, Madonna is an internationally successful aritst before mentioning her blah blah record company!" exactly how many singers end up running their own record company?  This is a major aspect of Madonna's biography.   When "Maverick" started there was a huge amount of publicity, Madonna was seen as becoming part of the "establishment" that she had previously subverted, and there was speculation as to how/if she would use her own status to develop other artists and thereby create a far wider legacy than just herself and her own music.  It was also speculated as to how far reaching her own career would become with herself officially at the helm of the label that distributed her music.  It was a deal that even the most successful of her rivals had not been able to achieve and was seen as a significant first for a female artist.   In some areas it was seen virtually as a license for her to print money.   And yet it didn't work out that way.   Why?   How?   That she has faced a legal battle with Warner's and relinquished "Maverick" is a much more important fact in her biography than much of the fancrufty chart sales and chart positions.  Yes, Madonna is a singer and performer and this is covered in considerable detail.  She is also a businesswoman, and a product, and is a marketer of herself as a product.  "Maverick" deserves at least a solid paragraph if not a section (personally I think it warrants a section) rather than the sentence given.  The offhand and dismissive one-sentence inclusion is one of the examples of why this article is more a fansite than an encyclopedic biographical article.  If you don't think "Maverick" is important, you are totally missing the point. There is more to be said here than "court nonsense".  Rossrs 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify : "American Life" needs to be discussed as a relatively poorly received release. "Confessions" has to be discussed as a great success.  Could not agree with you more.  However "Maverick" should also be discussed.  Not in the sections about either of the albums - agreed.  But it does need to be discussed.  In the overall sphere of Madonna's life and career in terms of her biography, the "Maverick" events are more significant than any one album.   It needs to be discussed but not under any of the album cover headings, which by the way, are very restrictive.   Articles such as Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey provide a chronology which is not limited by album title headers, and perhaps that is something else we need to address here.  The use of album titles precludes any other relevant discussion. Rossrs 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will someone PLEASE type up a good paragraph or two on Maverick? PatrickJ83 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her battle with Warners/the Maverick loss 

message: Hello, I was working on redirecting the links pointing at the disambiguation page for Producer and when I got here was a little unsure in what capacity Madonna is listed as a producer, is it, for example, record production or film production? I'd appreciate a little guidance. Thanks. - Politepunk 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Madonna is primarily a record producer, but she has been credited as an executive producer on some films. Underneath-it-All 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. Politepunk 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Producer?

message: Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive and add your vote!! 
We got 8 votes, let's get it to 12 by the end of the month!! The Madonna page will thank u.... PatrickJ83 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voted --hottie 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks hottie! PatrickJ83 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please vote in the Article Improvement Drive!!! 

message: This current format is such a mess, get rid of it!  Please!  The Ups and Dows, Successes... just awful.  Go back to the original version by each era.  Whoever messed this up should be banned from editing.
:Please sign your comments for others know who posted them and if you had a problem with the titles than please suggest other ones before reverting the article back to the album sections. As Rossrs says in the To Do List the album sections limit discussion of Madonna's career to only the albums and makes it difficult to discuss other relevant events unless they neatly fall under discussion of one of the albums. The album headers just make it harder to edit and add to the article. -- Underneath-it-All 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Underneath-it-All - and other editors have obviously agreed judging by hottie's edits, and PatrickJ83 and Orane's comments.  So to the anonymous reverter - do not presume to force your minority opinion onto this article.  Read through this talk page and you will see that several editors have been working on this article and that the recent changes have been supported.  In addition to changing the headers you have also changed all the subsequent edits within the article itself, and I really don't appreciate you wasting so much of my time. I spent a lot of time going through fixing things like spelling errors and poor grammar, and you've carelessly reverted the whole lot, as well as all the edits made by other editors.  Why?  Because you don't like it?  We are collectively trying to move this article forward - your reversion, which totally ignored all the other edits, has served no purpose but to put us back exactly where we started. Please take the time to learn how Wikipedia operates before you go making such big changes to this, or any, article, and please ensure that you are acting within the consensus of other users.   I'm reverting it back - please do not revert it unless you discuss it here first and get support from other editors.    Rossrs 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestion!  When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --W(t) 04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion/headers

message: The first two paragraphs of the section 1982-1985 Beginnings And Rise To Fame are horrible, it talks about a second single being Physical Attraction, a third about being Burning Up and a fourth being Holiday. Physical Attraction inded charted on the Dance Chart but #1 along with Holiday but never as a stand alone single and it didn't reach #3 and it never was a comericial single. Can someone please fix that. Ramonojo 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion!  When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --W(t) 04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Section 

message: I removed this part from the article:
:"Recently references to Kabbalah Centre beliefs and principles have appeared in her music, including the track "Nobody Knows Me" from American Life (I sleep much better at night / I feel closer to the Light / Now I'm gonna try / To Improve my life)."
Because I don't see a strict reference to Kabbalah in those lines. And I never heard Madonna say this song is about "Kabbalah Centre beliefs and principles". Bisco 17:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kabbalah

message: ...VERY tacky and the titles themselves sound quite hokey.  {64.12.117.10}
:It's a commonly accepted format. See featured articles Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue and Celine Dion as examples. If you think the titles are hokey, come up with something better, but we've discussed here at length how the use of album titles as headers limit article content to discussion relating to the albums.   This is an attempt to broaden the biographical information.  Please also note that reverting to an old version erases all subsequent edits - not just the headers that you dislike.  Things like spelling mistakes and incorrect grammar are being restored along with the headers.  Rossrs 14:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Years next to chapters

message: I uploaded thirteen Madonna audio samples, does anyone like it? I like it. Should I put more audio samples like Sorry, Material Girl, Music, etc in this article.--hottie 15:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the audio samples help add to the article, letting the reader listen to the songs described or talked about in the article. Good work hottie! The summaries under the samples might need to be worked on, but other than that I think that they should remain in the article. -- Underneath-it-All 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the audio samples are great; look at featured articles like Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey and Phil Collins. Oran e  (t) (c) (e) 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Oran e  (t) (c) (e) 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the samples are great too - you're making some real improvements to this article.  When musician/singer articles get nominated for featured article status, there's usually someone who objects if the article doesn't have samples.  You'll need to add copyright and fair use info when you get more time - check out the Mariah or Kylie samples to see what I mean. Rossrs 21:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the fair use rationales so quickly.  I've been thinking that a sample from Evita would be good.  I think we could afford one more.  Reason :  because she underwent vocal coaching to sing a style of music she was never expected to sing, and silenced a bunch of critics who said she couldn't do it.  It would be nice also to balance the dance/pop samples with a ballad sample.  Do you think "Don't Cry For Me Argentina?" or "You Must Love Me" would be ok?  Let me know what you think.  Rossrs 11:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You've been busy.  Thanks, I like "You Must Love Me" too. Rossrs 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio samples

message: Should a small discography section be added to the article? I see that the Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey articles all list their studio albums and most successful singles. I'm also currently working on a section detailing Madonna's acting career. -- Underneath-it-All 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a number-ones box before but Red-White-Blue removed it.--hottie 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography & acting 

message: Can someone please put a better picture of Madonna at the top of the article?  That one is rather poor.  I tried to change it, but it was reverted. Nwdavis 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't upload unfree-licensed media for the purpose of replacing free, reusable media.  Do, however, see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for examples of letters that you can write to the copyright-holders of media that you find in order to ask them to re-license their media under a free, reusable license.  Commercial information providers are unlikely to be helpful, but you may have luck with fans who have taken their own photographs.  Thanks for understanding.  Jkelly 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we can, but only if there is no free alternative.  If there is a free alternative we should use that, even if the image is of lesser quality.  Rossrs 07:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If your friend is willing to release the pictures under a free, reusable license, they can upload them to Wikimedia Commons.  Just remember to include source and license information.  If editors agree that they are superior to the ones that we have here, they are certain to be used.  Jkelly 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/License_selection Jkelly 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture on article 

message: This is what I was talking about in the "Poorly written article" column, and the tyrants who think they own it.  I changed the picture, it was changed back...but, meanwhile, explained why...and that was fine.  I understood.  Free vs. copyright images.  Okay, that's fair. But I sign on this morning and I see that the section titles, and many of the other edits I spent close to 2 hours adding to the article have been reverted back to what they originally were before.  This is why I didn't want to edit the article, I said that someone would come along and change it back to the way it was. The domineering attitude when it comes to certain editors is frustrating, and a bit insulting.  Nwdavis  06:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st, your picture doesn't have a source, 2nd no need the change the headers, 3rd I re-added some of your edits, 4th please don't write "#18" instead write it "number eighteen", 5th the extras infos should be put in the song articles/album articles, and you deleted some important stuff.--hottie 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone who know anything about written English knows it is standard practice to write numerals of one digit (i.e. 1-9) as the full word (one to nine) and numbers of two or more digits as the numeral itself.  So hottie, one DOES NOT write "number eighteen", but 18, or #18 or no. 18.  Ask any journalist.
If you know that what you wrote was in step to the progression of the article but someone out of arrogance came behind you and reverting your writings back to *their* version, then simply change it back.  Wikipedia is not the place for contributor arrogance.  One persons text is sanctified and no one owns these articles. - the real avenger 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits reverted 

message: Hi guys,
I was a bit surprised to see the article title is not "Madonna (singer)". I know she also acts, is a song producer etc. but that applies to many other singers. Why "entertainer"?
--Gennaro Prota 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have wondered this myself.  Prince is at Prince (artist), for example.  Jkelly 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No reason this can't be discussed further if anyone feels that "entertainer" is not the best option. Rossrs 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the original "mover" has some point, of course. But there are two issues: many other singers have the same many-sidedness of activities; "(entertainer)" is inconsistent with all other titles and, to me (I'm a non-native speaker), suggests more something like a showman than a singer/actress/producer. Maybe that's just me, though. --Gennaro Prota 20:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean.  I can't think of another way of naming it though...... Maybe somebody else will be able to.  Rossrs 14:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With absolutely no offense intended, I think saying she is an "actress", "dancer" or "author" is a bit exaggerate. Writing one or two books is not enough to become a writer and occasionally acting is different from being an actor. I think we should just use "Madonna (singer)". After all Andrea Bocelli has written a book and several articles but no one in Italy dreams of calling him a writer (though he could well qualify, being quite an educated person and having a degree in law). Please, do not flame... I'm just applying some good sense and I have nothing against Madonna. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone confuses the artist with the artwork, well, yes. Then probably he will confuse "Prince (artist)" with a portrayed aristocrat (of his own choice) as well ;) --Gennaro Prota (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "entertainer"? 

message: Please use edit summaries.  This article is having numerous edits made every day but most people are not using edit summaries (except for Underneath-it-All). It doesn't have to be in detail - just some indication of what's been done to make it easier for other editors to see this at a glance.  Thanks Rossrs 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries

message: I've reverted the article.  The reason is not that I think the article is perfect as it now stands, but because I think it is wrong to revert to an old undated version of the article, just because it is the preference of one editor.  Doing this reverts not only the edits that are being disputed, but also numerous reasonable edits that have also been made, that were aimed at fixing grammar, spelling, punctuation etc, as well as removing POV.  These changes should not be disputed, and they also should not be reverted, but they have been reverted several times now.   Please edit only the parts that need to be changed rather than taking the lazy way out and copy/pasting/reverting to an old version that is full of errors.   The article still needs a lot of work, but we need to move forward with it, not continue to drag ourselves back over and over to a previous bad version.  Rossrs 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Is the description of the song in the song file thingy the actual meaning of the song? PatrickJ83 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deeper and Deeper" description 

message: On the article about comercial ups and downs someone said that Madonna performed a cover of Imagine at the Tsunami Aid by the end of the year. That is completely false, the Tsunami Aid Concert was televised in January and Madonna recorded her performance during January of 2005.
Another thing is on the acting section they changed it to say that in 2006 Madonna had lend her voice for Arthur And The Minimoys, the movie is coming out in 2006 but her voice was recorded on 2004 and not on 2006. Ramonojo 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the Tsunami Aid Concert date and when she recorded her parts for Arthur And The Minimoys. Thanks for pointing these things out! -- Underneath-it-All 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two things that need to be fixed

message: It looks a tad strange shoved in at the bottom of her music career at the end.  Couldn't we give it it's own section, like Biography, Movie Career, Personal Life? Maddyfan 06:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea.  Rossrs 08:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I pulled the info from that page, over to the Madonna film and acting section. Maddyfan 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couldn't we add a seperate section, just for her movie career? 

message: Seriously, that picture is such an eyesore.  The image isn't even in focus.  We have to find something better for Madonna.  I found a picture, sourced it, and it was removed.  Someone needs to pull rank here, find a better image, and upload it quickly.  There's no reason why a beauty such as Madonna should not have a picture that truly represents her.  She's the most photographed woman in history and this is the best we could come up with?  Why on earth would anyone want to keep this one? Maddyfan 10:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because it's a free use image.  It's not a great image, but because Wikipedia aims to use only free content where possible, and always a free image as first choice, a free image, even a not particularly good one, will be used over a fair use copyrighted image.  The image you chose was very good, so maybe it could be used later in the article.  We can't replace the free image, much as we may want to, unless we replace it with another free image.  It's just a matter of time before someone finds a good, free image, but until then, we have to live with what we have. Rossrs 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: yes. Rossrs 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to hear more about this too. Maddyfan 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW PICTURE FOR MADONNA NEEDED AT TOP OF PAGE 

message: Above, we were discussing David Keirsey's work on personality type. I just logged on to his official site, and I was surprised by what I found. They have added a picture of Madonna on the profile page, along with a picture of Eva Peron, confirming what David Keirsey Jr had told me he was considering some time ago: that Eva Peron and Madonna are the same personality type. 
I noticed that the picture of Madonna is in fact a link. I clicked on the link, expecting it would link to Madonna's official site, or a fan site. Instead, I found that it links to the page I made on Amazon.com where I mention that Madonna is the same personality type as my own mother: http://keirsey.com/personality/spet.html -- Andrew Parodi 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About Madonna's personality type

message: This is just not making sense.  I've checked a half dozen other artist wiki pages, and they've all used promotional material for their artist picture caption at the top of their pages.  We're using screen caps, album covers, single covers, and even an Evita promo shot down below, but we're suppose to keep a crappy Live8 picture that barely even looks like Madonna because it's a free picture?  None of this is making sense.  We would be better off using a screen capture for Madonna's bio, then what is on there now.  Someone has to look into this.  Pictures of Madonna are out to the public, for public use everyday and we're even using them on here. Maddyfan 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see articles that are using unfree images when free ones are available, it would be great if you would take the time to correct that.  Jkelly 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because an image is free, doesn't mean it's the best one, or even one that should be used.  The one being used currently for Madonna is blurred and the pixels are off. Maddyfan 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Questions Surrounding Picture at Top of Page

message: I hope you enjoy the new Coachella picture added.  I got permission from the author. Maddyfan 05:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you should include all of the information you have about that image at :Image:Madonnac.JPG.  Right now someone has tagged it to be deleted for being unsourced.  Jkelly 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Updated

message: …that there are too many cooks in the kitchen, while one cook in particular likes to dominate the edits and act as if the article is his solely (or primarily) to do with what he pleases. — DtownG 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? PatrickJ83 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the user who goes by the name "Hotwiki."  His hands seems to constantly stay in the pot around here. - the real avenger 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Blah, blah I don't even know you edited this article--LooseTheHotButtonS 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem with the Madonna article is…

message: Once this tour starts this Sunday, will have tons of great live pictures of Madonna. Maddyfan 12:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another New Picture At The Top of Page Will Come 

message: The article should mention, at least, the lawsuit over "Frozen", the fact that she lost, and the consequence that "Frozen" is no longer legally available in Belgium.  DS 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frozen lawsuit 

message: I was surprised this was not listed in her Relationships section.. so I took the libery and included references. Is there any doubt about this? I have seen numerous photos of them together from this era (mid 90s). Hope this is a welcome addition. 
Madonna & Dennis Rodman -  xsxex
:I don't think there is doubt about it. But as your source suggests it's a little trivial. It was possibly a short relationship, not too serious or at least with no serious "outcome". Maybe we could concentrate in the Madonna (entertainer) article on the three "important" relationships. And put all other on Madonna trivia? I don't have to remind you that the main article is too long and one of the things-to-do is to stay to relevant, important facts and put all further useful, interesting information into other articles. Bisco 08:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madonna & Dennis Rodman 

message: Where did that name come from (just asking)? --Mhking 21:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that is absolute nonsense.  It's the type of wild exaggeration that is rampant in this article.   She has not been referred to as that from the beginning of her career.  It's far more recent. Rossrs 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen of Pop 

message: I think :Image:Madonnac1.JPG looks awful.  Out of the available free choices, I think :Image:Madonna Live 8 - 1.jpg is the best.  :Image:Madonnac1.JPG has her face covered by hair, --Rob 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated the image that's been donated.  It's from the Confessions Tour. Big, and you can see Madonna perfectly and clearly. Maddyfan 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps :Image:Forbiddenlovecropped.jpg should be cropped further, to cut out empty background (on the top and left sides)?  Also, it may be good to upload it to Commons (where Commons:Madonna (entertainer) is), so all the other language wikis can share it..  --Rob 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best if we had more information about each photograph, especially a verifiable way to determine that the image has been released under a free, reusable license.  If uploading anything to Commons, please upload the full image at the highest available resolution.  Jkelly 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I did all that. Maddyfan 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maddyfan, the new image is superb in my opinion.  Thank you and well done! Rossrs 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try.  Maddyfan 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is the best image? 

message: Why was the section about her involvement with the Kabbalah Center removed? I agree that it ran too long, but it's an important part of her these days, so there should be something about it here, no?--Downtownstar 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it.  Earlier today there was a vandal who edited this article 12 times, each time removing swathes of text.  In the 12 reverts that followed, the Kabbalah section was somehow missed.  That was just an oversight, but thank you for noticing and pointing it out. Rossrs 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kabbalah Center

message: I see that the influences section is missing her latin influences, all from her La Isla Bonita, to Who's That Girl and Evita to the spanish versions of You'll See and What It Feels Like For A Girl and her admiration and inspiration for Frida Kahlo I think shows her latin influences, should that be included? Ramonojo 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Madonna does have a well-known love of Latin-American culture from the music to the men. If you or someone can make a well-written section about that please go for it. --MrBlondNYC 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Influences

message: Who put in that pap of a second paragraph? More biased B.S. Remember a few weeks back when the opening salvo was perfect? Go back that that. PatrickJ83 03:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me Patrick.  You need to be more specific.  Why is the second paragraph "pap" and what makes it "biased B.S."?  Which particular opening salvo of a few weeks ago did you consider perfect, and why so, because there have been so many variations.   It's no help to just make angry, unconstructive comments like this, because we're not mindreaders.  Rossrs 11:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The opening paragraph sucks....again. 

message: I'm not an expert, but did she not also pursue a relationship with Ingrid Casares?  Eddieuny 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship Section

message: Am i wrong or didnt Mado lived around one year in Paris and France ?
81.57.68.117 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that she did work with French disco singer Patrick Hernandez and was a backup singer on his world tour, but am unsure whether or not she lived in France for a year. I don't think she did though. -- Underneath-it-All 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 

message: No mention of her in the relationships section either? Madonna's lesbian dalliance in the '90s was all the talk of the tabloids and television. I'm not well-versed in the complete scenario enough to make the changes to the article myself, otherwise I would. Then again, anything I contributed would most likely get reverted by some "Mad" fan who graduated from Gerber to solids when Madonna's career was at its height. FuturePresent 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody else has also noted that Ingrid Casares is not mentioned, and Madonna was also reported to be very close to Rosie O'Donnell for a time.  Correctly done, it's valid and important, especially in view of her approach to/depiction of sexuality in general, and specifically to her relationship with the gay community.  You make a very good point, but ending it with an unprovoked insult is not an effective way of soliciting support for your viewpoint. Rossrs 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A jest, a mere jest -- and nothing more. I thought the Gerber link would have made that clear. Apologies to any fundamentalist Wikipedians who were offended by the joke.FuturePresent 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current phrasing RE: Bernhard is unacceptable. At the best the only completley outright statement made about their relationship, from either side, is that they were extremely good friends. Any intimations of a lesbian relationship were just that - intimations. The only person to speak out implicitly about the aftermath of the situation is Bernhard, who has stated fairly clearly in her various one-woman shows that, WHATEVER happened between them, Bernhard felt betrayed by the way it ended. Someone needs to source this statement that they had an actual sexual relationship, or else it needs to be revised. Pacian 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Completely unaccepable.  Furthermore, similar wording was used in regards to Ingrid Casares, and also to numerous males.  Wikipedia is not a list of people Madonna has allegedly slept with. I've deleted a large amount of text as unsubstantiated, uncited rumours.  When you see something like this, written without any source or reference,  especially something that could potentially be libellous (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living people) the best course is to get rid of it.  Please, just remove it on sight. To quote Jimmy Wales : "It should be removed, aggressively....".  Rossrs 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your point exactly?  I'm sorry, but I haven't read each of the more than one million articles on Wikipedia, so somehow I must have missed reading Winona Ryder.  Just because the Winona Ryder article is full of gossip and unsubstantiated crap, doesn't mean the Madonna article should be too.  The "idea" is valid for Winona Ryder, but I'm not going to edit every article on Wikipedia.     I'm sure you could find dozens, maybe hundreds of other examples.  So what?  We're talking about the Madonna article here.  Rossrs 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not how it works.  I don't need to "make a research on the web", and yes it is gossip.  What purpose does it serve?  It's true. So what?  That doesn't mean we need to record it as part of a biographical article.  How important is Andy Bird?    Quite possibly, I know more about Madonna than you do, but that's not the point.  I really don't care whether these people dated Madonna or not, my comments are related to how the information is presented in the article.  I've read about these people and I'm not disputing your assertions but you need to consider how Wikipedia operates and work within its guidelines of providing sources.   The onus is on you to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and cite sources.  Telling me that you can put whatever you want into the article because I "can make a research on the web" is just nonsense.   You need to take some time to learn how Wikipedia works, and try to distinguish between the type of writing and information appropriate for a fanzine and the type of writing and information appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Rossrs 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandra Bernhard? 

message: Why was Charles Barkley deleted from her relationship page?  In Madonna's infamous appearance on Late Night in 1994 that's all Letterman wanted to talk about the entire first half of the show.  Plus, a citation was used and I see no reason why an unknown like Andy Bird or a has-been like Vanilla Ice should be listed and a legend like Barkley be omitted.--216.63.107.164 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Barkley 

message: According to the "Relationships and family" section, Madonna "... refers to herself simply as "Mrs. Ritchie" on her personal letterhead".  If she has apparently taken on her husband's surname in her personal life, should she not be referred to as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone Ritchie in the opening paragraph? 
Also, does she even use her confirmation name, Veronica, legally, personally, or in any other way other than within the Roman Catholic Church.  If she only used it within the Church, it's unlikely that she still uses it, as she's now studying Kabbalah. Charity 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Happy Birthday, Madonna, we love you!! 48 and still kicking, keep it up, girrrlll, you're hawt! Shandristhe azylean 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Birthday! 

message: I have protected this article from editing, pending the resolultion of its current revert warring. Stewiegfan, please explain these reverts: , , and how the first of those actually removed anything remotely spam-like from the article. - Mark 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that you did, the comment was made for Stewiegfan, sorry. Paul75 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph states what is already talked in detail on the tour's main page.  It's the same exact thing.  Something of mention would be, Madonna embarked on a world tour in support of the album, starting May 2006, hitting the US, most of Europe, and parts of Asia.  The tour went onto become the highest grossing tour for a female performer.... if people want full blown details, sold out tickets, etc., it's on the tour's page.
I have unprotected this article, due to the discussion that has gone on here. Hopefully, everyone can work together on this article instead of simply reverting one another backwards and forwards. If you feel compelled to remove large chunks of text, please discuss such a removal here on the talk page, providing your reasons and allowing other editors to provide their opinions of what should happen. If you see some spelling or grammatical errors, please correct them yourself, instead of removing the text altogether. If the revert warring picks back up, I will simply re-protect the article. - Mark 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: This is an encyclopedia entry.  It is not a fan site.  It is not the definitive guidebook to Madonna.  The aim of an encyclopedia is to provide factual information on a subject that will give someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject a basic working knowledge of the said subject.  They do NOT need to know when Madonna announced one of her tours, why a performance at the Grammys formed the basis of a future performance, the exploration in depth of her relationship with Sandra Bernhard or the day she broke her nail.  A FACTUAL, NPOV CONDENSED REPORT OF HER LIFE AND CAREER IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.  Stop bickering about the fact that someone removed your edit after "all the time you spent on it" - get over it.  If you aren't prepared for someone to edit your precious work, don't contribute to Wikipedia.  That is one of the main rules of Wikipedia.  I suggest that if anyone wants to write an indepth, never ending report of Madonna they establish their own website - Yahoo does it for free. What this article needs it for an experienced writer to produce the definitive article and then have it protected forever....if only.  This page is an embarrassment to Madonna, an embarassment to Wikipedia and most importantly an embarrassment to the fans.  Grow up the lot of you.  Personal abuse can be directed at the bottom of the entry, I know it is going to come.  Paul75 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grow up

message: Who the heck keeps re-writing (and keeping) that second paragraph of the intro? The latest which one (which had to go) looks like it was written by a grade-schooler. There only needs to be TWO paragraphs TOPS in the intro:
"Madonna Louise Ciccone (born August 16, 1958), better known worldwide by only her first name Madonna, is an American pop singer, record and film producer, dancer, actor, and children's author. Sometimes referred to as the "Queen of Pop", she is noted for her innovative music videos, elaborately mounted stage performances, and use of political, sexual, and religious themes and imagery in her work.
In 2000, The Guinness Book of Records credited Madonna as the most successful female recording artist of all time, with estimated worldwide sales of 120 million albums.[1] Her record label, Warner Bros. Records, reported in 2005 that she had achieved international sales in excess of 200 million albums."
That's enough!! Knock it off with the lame "her style matured....she won grammies....she toured" crap. Someone who doesn't know much about Madonna doesn't need to know this superflous junk, they want to know the facts. And give it a rest with the "commonly referred to as Queen of Pop" stuff as well, if you can't leave it simple don't put it in at all!!! And note how I moved it to the middle of the first paragraph. PatrickJ83 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph of intro an endless nightmare 

message: in the late 70/early 80s Madonna went on tour as a "disco tart" in Europe peforming in night clubs - I believe she did some work with Giorgio Moroder - this is not mentioned at all in her bio. I am not sure of the details but I though Id put it out there....
Mrlopez2681 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left out her Giorgio Moroder period 

message: Why on earth isn't the article called Madonna Ciccone? Thats her name. Beyonce's is called Beyonce Knowles even though she releases records under her first name only
Madonna's professional name has always been Madonna; Beyonce's hasn't. PatrickJ83 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VERY IMPORTANT 

message: The lead of this article describes Madonna as a "children's author," but for the life of me I can't find any book mentioned other than the obvious one, which is about as far from a kids' book as you can get. I don't know much about her, so either that description is completely incongruous, or information needs to be added. Probably her role as a non-children's author ought to be mentioned up there, too. --Masamage 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I found proof that she has written children's books; someone involved with this article needs to do an Amazon search and add the appropriate info. --Masamage 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I've added a  Books section that mentions  Sex and lists three of her children's books.  The subject is more fully covered on the  Madonna bibliography page, which is referenced at the bottom of this article, so I think that's enough for the time being. --Little Miss Might Be Wrong 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course she's a children's author, everybody knows. She's also got a record as a children's author, the quickest consecutive #1 best sellers in the world ever (the English Roses and its follow up went to #1 in a matter of months from each other) as well as in the uS. Maybe one should mention that money from those books went all to charity, so, she has not made a penny out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children's author? 

message: A truly bad article which easily breaches NPOV, it just kisses her backside like there's no tomorrow. Really unbalanced. LuciferMorgan 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: There will be six singles from the album Confessions on a dabcefloor.The fifht single will be Push and the six How High(Will only come out if Push gets high in the charts).This two songs were taken from the Confessions Tour setlist because MAdonna plans to release them as singles.Madonna will perform Push on the MTV EMA 2006 with dancers wearing Blue clothes.
There will be a new Album soon with rock/Dance and balade songs.
Lenny Kravitz and Stuart Price will work on some songs with her.
There will be also a new  Tour with songs that the Fans will be able to choose(no remixes,only original versions of the songs...)
These informations are from Warner Bros.
:LOL PatrickJ83 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Madonna 2007 

message: Madonna's attracted a number of tag names during her career, "Boy Toy", "The Material Girl", "The Maternal Girl", "Madge" and  "The Queen of Pop", among others,  but she hasn't been commonly known by any of them.  If "commonly" was accurate I would expect to see her referred as such in almost every artice I read about her, because "commonly" implies that this is what she is usually known as.  This is not the case.  I know it's only one word but it subtly changes the meaning of the sentence.  She's often called "Queen of Pop".    If it's so important that it has to be mentioned in the lead paragraph, can we at least ensure that we are not overstating the facts, and not place too much importance on a fairly meaningless phrase, one of many invented by the media.  Rossrs 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen of Pop

message: Is there a difference between a recording artist and a singer?  If not, the last paragraph in the introduction about Madonna being crowned the most successful female recording artist and most successful female singer by the Guiness Book of Records in 2000 and 2007, respectively, seems slightly redundant to me.  Might I suggest removing the old 2000 reference and keeping the most recent (2007) record? Charity 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all recording artists are singers, some are musicians but do not sing. Madonna is both, and is far ahead of any runner up either amongst female singers and female musicians. In a way, yes, it's redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guiness records 

message: Is the phrase 'fuck up of a father' who is responsible for Madonna's strength of personality a quote??  Because if so, it should appear as one, with adequate 'Madonna once said's etc . If not, obviously needs to be removed.203.87.126.56 08:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's just vandalism. I removed it. -Patstuart 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuck up 

message: This section is becoming ridiculous. It's full of hearsay: we have people adding that she's had an affair with people Oliver Newton (who the heck is that?), Michael Jackson and Prince (is that feasible?). I'm close to getting rid of any names that aren't specifically sourced; the temptation is far too great to just add names and conjecture to this section. -Patstuart 17:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I'm talking about the last section of the paragraph: "According to various sources, Madonna also had affairs with..." -Patstuart 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: How about mentioning Madonna and the right to roam?  There was a lot of press coverage about this in the UK: mainly as a 'hook' to get people into the more general story, but still.  Morwen - Talk 10:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramblers 

message: In the adoption section there is this reference: 
:Other adoption rights groups have noted that Madonna did not cut in line to adopt Banda, pointing out that only three visas were issued in 2005 for adopted children to leave Malawi.
What does this mean that she cut in line? Or that she did not cut in line? I'm mystified. 
Thanks, 
Andrew Parodi 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I read it is that you have the critics, who are attacking Madonna's adoption because it comes under questionable circumstances.  One of the criticisms of Madonna's adoption is that she appears to have gotten favorable treatment due to her fame and wealth.  Many people have been waiting for months or years to adopt, and seemingly overnight Madonna has an adoption.  The "other adotpion rights groups," however, point out that she did not cut in line because Malawi is not a country that routinely offers international adoption.  In other words, if I was the next person on the list to adopt an African child, Madonna didn't get the child that should have come to me because Malawi would never send a child to me.  Per the US State Department, Malawi law says that international adoptions from Malawi are illegal unless you reside in Malawi. Balloonman 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: Someone has made changes to the article concerning Madonna's family. See this revision. There's no sourcing to show the new change. However, I found another article which says she's the oldest of eight. Anyone have any sources to corroborate the changes? --Wolf530 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: I'm no Madonna fan, but anyone would agree she is controversial.  There are over 50 separate topics on this talk page.
I agree with the first post titled "Criticism", and several others.  I think what one wants, in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, is a balanced article.  Certainly it's fine to say "Madonna has legions of slavish fans", but to balance the article, you also want to say "she's frequently the target of criticism".  Certainly she is more revered by some, and criticized by others, than many pop singers or celebrities.
Also, it seems excessive to give information on her "confirmation name".  Either add "Veronica" or don't.  No reputable dictionary would waste space explaining that someone sometimes uses their confirmation name, and sometimes doesn't.
rich 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: The David Banda adoption is controversial.  I have no problem with edits to the section, but I think it does a disservice to the page to ignore the controversy by deleting it.  Also, if you are going to change a quote, you need to make sure the quote is corrected correctly.  Changing what was actually said is never appropriate.Balloonman 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David Banda Adoption Controversy

message: Why is this article an endless mess....with superflous junk about her 'influences'....can we just get the straight facts?
Also, instead of so much shallow crap, it would be nice to have an article about the criticism that has been leveled against Madonna for the past 23 years and how she's reacted to it. 
Also I would like to see a mention about US radio no longer playing her music. PatrickJ83 22:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it; just explain why in the edit summary, so no one thinks your deletions are vandalism. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so, with explanations, and a day later some nitwit reverses it. PatrickJ83 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Did he provide a reason why? Ask him to take it to the talk page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is nobody doing anything??? 

message: I don't know how to suggest an RN but don't you think this article should be titled Madonna Ciccone, since it is her name? I suggested the same thing for Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ and that made sense. Before it was titled: Ben Hur (novel). It might as well work for Madonna Ciccone
Madonna has never really used Ciccone professionally, though, except when she filmed A Certain Sacrifice very early in her career.  Plus, she's taken Ritchie as her surname, and she previously took Penn as her last name during her marriage to Sean Penn, so I think that titling this article "Madonna Ciccone" would probably be inappropriate. Charity 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: Does anyone think that a link to the site www.absolutemadonna.com would be appropriate for the external links section? I think the site is pretty good and adds info not able to be discuseed in the article as is talked about atWP:EL.BHFeller 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible external link 

message: I haven't read the article fully, but the intro really disturbs me. Is this what passes for an introduction nowadays? An exhaustive rundown of the artist's success? An into is supposed to give an overview of the artist's career (see Phil Collins, Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion, and Mariah Carey). Also, the world music awards is nothing special, so please don't blow it out of proportion. She received it for being the best-selling pop artist of the year. Nothing more! MJ and Mariah Carey were named best-selling of the millennium (and they have the most awards for any artists)— those are notable WMA records.
Also, Madonna has not sold that many records; please source. And we are not in any position to make any conclusions about whether her total sales places her in the top 5 in the world. I implore the fans. Please read the policies about the tone and nature of articles. See Manual of Style and NPOV. Thank you. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the World's music award isn't that big of a deal, but please don't imply Mariah Carey, who isn't even close to being as international as Madonna, is more successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.13 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I implied nothing of the sort. Why would I? Doesn't Madonna hold the Guinness record? Anyway, my point is that the article is in an extremely poor condition, and actions need to be taken. This was once a featured article (one of the best of its kind on Wikipedia), and fans of Madonna, in their effort to tout thier queen, have virtually obliterated any sense of balance and coherecy. To quote an editor above, the article "kisses Madonna's ass like there is no tomorrow"! Orane (talk • cont.) 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Madonna is the most iconic female superstar all around the world, THİS İS NOT THE CASE OF MARİAH CAREY AT ALL!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.80.138 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what I implied! Would you guys please stop dodging the issue? That's it. As soon as I get some free time, I'm going to monitor this article. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does this always degenerate so quickly into a competition between Madonna fans and Mariah Carey fans, or Madonna fans and Kylie Minogue fans or Madonna fans and anyone else?  Orane was not comparing the performers, he was comparing their Wikipedia articles, and I agree with him. This article is well below the standard of many other articles, and the entire "Mariah is better", "Mariah is not better", "Madonna is a goddess" nonsense is getting tiresome and does nothing but distract people from the problem, which is the content of this article.   It's not about paying tribute to your favourite artist.  Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion among others,  were once as bad as this article and were dominated by fans who kissed their asses like there was no tomorrow too, but they are all now featured articles, proving that excellent articles can be written about individual performers, whether you love them or hate them.  Why is it so difficult to do the same here?    Rossrs 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and such

message: You guys is Madonna bi-sexual she never admitted it sure I saw the SEX with girls and boys mock fucking her but is she really bi!?
:Yes. PatrickJ83 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Madonna has never denied being bisexual either, and has had at least 6 female lovers that we know of, so... Guess, yes, Madonna is bi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SEXUALITY

message: From this page: "Having sold just 4 million copies, American Life is the lowest selling album of her career." From American_Life "American Life posted the lowest sales of any Madonna album to date both in the US and worldwide - reaching 666,000 copies sold as of July 2006 in the U.S". Did the other 3,334,00 copies sell in the rest of the world? Or is this a mistake? JayKeaton 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's just the tendency of Madonna's fans to inflate her sales. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one is correct then? JayKeaton 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think much more than 2.5-3m has been sold internationally. PatrickJ83 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  American Life sales figures are uncertain, it is almost (!!!) double platinum in Europe and it's single platinum in the US, it has not done wonderfully anywhere, and with her EU sales usually matching the rest of the world without the US, it might just be about 5m (1+2+2) or more likely less, as in the EU, France boosted its sales (it was huge there). So, 4.5/5m is an estimate, but nothing is sure. COAD has so far shipped 1.8 in the US, almost if not more than 5m in the EU (it's 4 plat, but sales alone push it to around 5, EU certifications take months and is expected to go 5plat with the next batch of certifications in January) in teh rest of the world it had shipped for sure 2.3 million in Dec 1005 -IFPI-, and has since been recertified in a lot of countries (only adding CA+Oz+Jap one gets past 500k), so it is very safe to say that it's about at least 3 million there (likely more, as it wa a huge hit all over the world apart from the US). The figure is uncertain, as always, but it seems to point to a minimum of 9m so far. Going the other way round shows the same, the iFPI declared 6.3m for COAD at the end of 2005, since it's added 800K in the US, 500K in Jap+Ca=Oz, and at least a1/6m (more likely 2-as adding individiual countries plats gives us in excess of 2m, but as I said, EU plats are slow )in the EU- that again 9m+, maybe going towards 10. For sure is also that WB paid tax on 8.4m copies in April, so did Madonna on copyrights for 8.4m, that was 7 months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.122.26 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error?

message: This page is getting extremely long. Might I suggest archiving the discussion page a 3rd time? 70+ posts is a bit much to wade through. I've also added the too long tag ... as a suggestion, perhaps best fit to split, merge, and remove non-critical information?Trodaikid1983 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently someone else doesn't think the article is too long. I can tell you though that generally, people don't like to wade through thousands of words to find a fact about Madonna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trodaikid1983 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive the discussion page 

message: I just want to add an update concerning her album sales.
:Since I added the protection, in the first place, I've gone one step ahead and unprotected the page. Hopefully the disruption is long past, and you should be able to edit the page as you like. Cheers! Luna Santin 03:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: editprotected

message: Updated the Criticism by putting  tags. I also added criticism from animal rights groups.
I changed "She also urged fans to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and this proves what kind of whack job she truly is" to "She urged fans to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11" How has promoting watching a fact based movie show her to be a whack job, she is just trying to educate some of the undereducated... ChristopherMannMcKay 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated, Changed