Talk:Madonna/Archive 3

message: Who took out the "author" reference in the beginning paragraph?! PLEASE PUT IT BACK!!!
I'm so sick and tired of this vandalism. Some people with real feeling of hate toward the singer do everything in their power to ridicule and destroy this article.
PLEASE FIX IT! THANK YOU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.163.207 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Author!!!!!

message: Anyone with half a brain can see that the claim of..what? 180 million record sales is NOT true. In fact, your own website contradicts itself. Go to the "List of best-selling music artist" page and you will see not ONE, but TWO citations (one of them from Rolling Stone Magazine) saying she has sold 175 million albums and 75 million singles. 175 + 75 = 250. Okay? Thanks.
76.112.102.98 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're referring to album sales. 68.82.82.248 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The sources say she sold 250 million albums. Read the heading!!also please mention that she is a multiple grammy and golden globe award winner. The song "you must love me" recorded by madonna earned an oscar for the film
I agree..Mariah Carey in fact not the biggest selling female. Her sales cannot be confirmed officially because RIAA is a US-based company not worldwide! Her sales figures is considered CLAIMs not FACTs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Your Act Together, People

message: Madonna's being titled in almost every article as the 'Queen of Pop'; it's almost as it's her second name. That title should be out there in the beginning of the Wiki page, and not just mentioned at the 'Criticism' section as "... while some proclaimed her as the queen of pop..."
That's just not right and doesn't do justice with her. The "Queen of Pop" title is an integral part of the reference and the description of Madonna in the media. That's just a fact – just google her and you'll see that in more that 95% of the articles she's being called just that. In fact that title is almost like her second name in the media. That should be fixed in the Madonna page.
i must agree infact it seems odd that it isnt in the lead. i woundn`t concider it to be fan wording to put it there, the only people who would question it would be those who hate her inwhich case have bias themselves surely. Realist2 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added to the introduction today. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen Of Pop

message: Maybe it's time to update the intro and write that teh IFPI ahve finally confirmed that Madoona HAS SOLD MORE than 200 million albums The most official source in music idustry confirms: Madonna's unprecedented album sales for a female artist top the 200 millio albums (which means well more than 300m million records worldwide including singles, probably 320/330) Source...  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.181.217 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPDATE IFPI 

message: User 84.45.196.194 wrote This seems to me like the rantings of a fan, aiming to score one above the criticisms. There are no sources quoted, and weasel-words are predominant.
Well, the one that created the Criticism section admitted to absolutely hate Madonna, which denotes some bias. And the review of Love Profusion that was given was a blatant rant. I wrote great Madonna lyrics. Those who reviewed Love Profusion chose the simplest lyrics of the song in order to bash it. "We all know she can't write lyrics...", "...even for a retard." THAT was a retarded rant! Some artists' articles like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and many others don't even have a criticism section. I'm only being objective and would write the same thing for any artist.
 Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectiveness 

message: The term 'artiste' is definitely more appropriate to describe Madonna Louise Ciccone than 'entertainer', which is used for circus clowns, cabaret shows, etc, which is absolutely ridiculous. Madonna is an artiste not an entertainer - she is pop star! Do not use words like idiosyncratic, sure you jest, but the term 'entertainer' is more idiosyncratic than artiste which is a more appropriate term... If there are any alternative choice of words, prefably it would be (Singer/Actress), (Performer) or (Artiste
'Entertainer' is an insult to the Madonna whom u classified her amongst circus clowns, cabaret show girls, magicians, stand-up comedians and game-show hosts... Madonna is not in the same category as them! Stealthusa 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we must add to Madonna's name, I think that artiste does fit better than entertainer, though I don't think that "entertainer" was an insult and I do think that "Artiste" should not be capitalized.  However, I think that this article would be better located at simply "Madonna", relocating the disambiguation page there to "Madonna (disambiguation)", as has been done with Cher and Cher (disambiguation). Charity 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop moving the page around.  Have a discussion here about a proper renaming, which would not involve pretentious pseudo-French nor incorrect capitalisation, get consensus, move the page, and then edit the several hundred pages that link here to reflect the change.  If you're actually just goofing around, please use the Wikipedia:Sandbox for that.  Jkelly 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If you wish to move the page to a different title, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  It clearly warrants discussion, so please no more page moves until we've had a thorough talk about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it at WP:RM, and there is a section for discussing the move at the bottom of this page now.  —ShadowHalo 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Madonna's entertainer to artiste

message: It seems that there are different interpretations of the meaning of the word "criticism" as used in the header of the same name.  In terms of artistic review it encompasses comments that are both negative and positive.  Hence a 'film critic' can critique a film and say nothing but good about it, or nothing but bad, or a mix of both.  The "criticism" section would be more balanced and more in line with WP:NPOV if it summarized critical commentary both negative and positive.  But the last thing this article needs is another essay or another injection of POV.   Perhaps a different heading would make it clearer - perhaps "Critical comments" or "Critical commentary" etc.   The "objectiveness" section is anything but objective and appears to be completely POV.  (At least the criticism section is sourced and attributed) however I can see the value in tempering the exclusively negative tone of the "criticism section".  Rossrs 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some may regard her vocal range as limited, but this is not criticism. One's vocal range has little to do with oe's singing quality. Moreover, these 'some' mentioned in teh article are cery little informed about vocal range. With a continuous range of 2.5 octaves, Madonna far exceeds the average singer's range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.33.6 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: User 84.45.196.194 wrote This seems to me like the rantings of a fan, aiming to score one above the criticisms. There are no sources quoted, and weasel-words are predominant.
Well, the one that created the Criticism section admitted to absolutely hate Madonna, which denotes some bias. And the review of Love Profusion that was given was a blatant rant. I wrote great Madonna lyrics. Those who reviewed Love Profusion chose the simplest lyrics of the song in order to bash it. "We all know she can't write lyrics...", "...even for a retard." THAT was a retarded rant! Some artists' articles like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and many others don't even have a criticism section. I'm only being objective and would write the same thing for any artist.
 Israell 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with the objectiveness section; this is not a fan page. And that entire section is nothing but glorifying her. I'm not saying that the Criticism section is without problems, but the verbiage in the Objectiveness section should not be here. There is no similar entry on ANY other potentially controversial individual on Wikipedia, from George W. Bush to Michael Jackson, or even Saddam Hussein. It likewise, should not be here. --Mhking 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got no problem with that -- my problem was specifically that the Objectiveness section was made to look like a fawning fan section. And as I said, no other page here has that. A balanced Criticism section is best for all. (and as for the confirmation name, I agree with you - my point was with the persons who included that name as a birth name) --Mhking 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Israell, you appear to be adding more "complimentary" content to the criticism section. I'm going to say this again, this is not a fan site. I'm going to reduce the amount of glad-handing you've posted. Balance is one thing; what you're doing is going beyond that. --Mhking 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectiveness 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
====Survey - Oppose votes====
*Oppose There is nothing wrong with the current name, she IS an entertainer after all (an entertainer can be a singer, actor, dancer, etc. anyone that ENTERTAINS). TJ Spyke 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Oppose There is nothing wrong with the current name, she IS an entertainer after all (an entertainer can be a singer, actor, dancer, etc. anyone that ENTERTAINS). TJ Spyke 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: OK. That edit MUST be good. Since ONE line from Love Profusion was added and criticised negatively, I added ONE Live To Tell line and added a source that criticises it positively. We're equal and even now. lol Editing a Madonna page is so hard hard. This I know. lol
However, Madonna's vocals on Live To Tell were considered her best by others at the timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_to_Tell. 
They deemed Live To Tell's lyrics poignant.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_to_Tell "A man call tell a thousand lies. I've learned my lesson well. Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned. 'Til then it will burn inside of me."http://www.madonna.com
Madonna also received good reviews from some reviewers for her Love Don't Live Here Anymore coverhttp://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=117 which was described as "heartfelt vocal"http://www.amazon.com/Like-Virgin-Madonna/dp/B000002L6P.  
Some critics do see Madonna as a talented songwriterhttp://christopher.goodman.net/Papers/Madonna.htmlhttp://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/04-02-98/Arts/4.html.
Israell 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: This article is way too long and should be divided into sub-articles Epachamo 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Way too long!

message: Keep the opening paragraph as short and obejective as possible. Lines like "She is 'COMMONLY' referred to as Queen of Pop or sometimes just "the Queen" are total nonsense. Madonna is NOT "COMMONLY" referred to as that, but SOMETIMES. And nobody calls her "THE QUEEN" except her uber-hardcore fans. PatrickJ83 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patrick, you are so right.  The lead is meant to be a short summary of the article, not a publicity blurb.  Rossrs 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE 

message: Would this picture be ok to use for the main page??
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/070618_Issue/070608_BZ01_vl.widec.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.197.135 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new picture.... 

message: I was doing some thinking of the inclusion of this 'title' in the opening salvo. As fitting as it is for her position as the highest selling female artist (it is VERY UNLIKELY M. Carey has outsold her) it still smacks of bias and fan idolatry. Perhaps this should be removed from the opening paragraph to make it more professional. Opinions? PatrickJ83 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't say 'it's impossible to come to an understanding with me' as you and I have had NO dealings together in the past. Ta. PatrickJ83 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who has removed this comment several times in the past, I'd be happy to see it gone from the lead section.  And before anyone starts ranting at me, please read WP:LEAD to see what kind of information is supposed to be recorded there.  The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article that follows,  but although the article goes on (and on and on and on) there is no mention of "Queen of Pop" anywhere.  In my opinion this defies logic.  It's so important it must be mentioned without any kind of context in the lead, but not important enough to even mention it in the article despite the thousands and thousands of words that attempt to describe Madonna in extreme detail.   I have no problem with it being mentioned in the article, in fact I would encourage it,  but the lead should be reserved for the most important things about the subject and the fact that Madonna is sometimes referred to as "Queen of Pop" is not one of the most important things to say about her. Rossrs 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and I removed it again. I have nothing against mentioning the Queen of Pop thingy in the article, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.--Downtownstar 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I still have a problem with the title being included at all. It is not widely used -- certainly not within the mainstream media. If anything, it is more fancruft, and as such, does not belong in a Wikipedia entry. I'll leave it for now; I'm about to be away for a family emergency. But this is something that truly needs to be excised. --Mhking 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhking, Madonna is called The Queen of Pop, just about every time she is written about.  The media dubbed her that and continue to refer to it. Downdown723 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you give three examples? I have never heard of this. WhizzBang 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Queen of Pop" 

message: Why isn't this in the main section? Madonna is not only the richest woman in music, but she is also one of the richest in the world. A lot of people want to know about Madonna's Net Worth. I have done years of research on Madonna's fortune and i believe a lot of people want to know aswell.
Net worth
Madonna is the richest female singer in the world, and one of the richest self-made women in the world, with an estimated net worth of over $850 million. Her wealth is closer to $850m USD than the reported $665m. In 2004 alone, she earned more than $50 million with her Re-Invention Tour which became a new record for a female singer on The "Guinness Book of Records".[4]
. On ABC's "Life of Luxury", which aired on December 13, 2000, Madonna was named the richest female artist with an estimated fortune of $613,000,000. Madonna just may be a billionaire herself... if not today, then very shortly in time.
Aside from her music and films, Madonna is also involved in the magagement of MadGuy Films; Boy Toy, Inc.; Webo Girl; Siren Films; Slutco, Inc..
Maverick Records was the most successful "vanity label" in music history. While under Madonna's control it generated well over $1 'billion dollars for Warner Bros. Records, more money than any other recording artist's record label. She helped bankroll Alanis Morissette and Michelle Branch's careers.
Alvin Hall, presenter of World's Most Powerful on BBC News chose Madonna as the World's Most Powerful Celebrity, followed by Oprah Winfrey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QueenofPopfan4ever (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madonna's Net Worth? 

message: One of the problems of the articles are the constant changes. "In addition, Madonna holds the record for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist.", has been replaced by "In addition, Madonna holds the record (previously by Cher) for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist.", and finally by "She also holds the record for the top-grossing concert tour by a female artist." 
"She is often referred to as the Queen of Pop." has been added too.
Wikipedia should have a new policy. Edits should first be approved before featuring on articles. It would save us time, prevent vandalism and we would not have to keep on reverting/correcting them. Israell 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The constant changes can be an annoyance but sometimes they can lead to improvements, and I think that it's better to let people edit freely without having to get a consensus for each edit.  That would be even more time-consuming so I think we should save the talk page for the difficult issues that provoke disagreement.     What you are doing is exactly right - watching for edits that are problematic and fixing them.  Some of the best articles have grown out of confusion and contraversy. Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue and Celine Dion are featured articles, and you know, they were all a huge mess and the subjects of a lot of edit warring at various times.   You are one of several editors that cares about this article, and it'll end up being steered in the right direction just as Carey, Minogue and Dion were.  It just takes patience and persistence.  I wouldn't be too alarmed about all these recent edits. Rossrs 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant changes 

message: "She is also a fashion icon! Realist2 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: please change her birthyear; it's currently listed as 1928 (age 78)!
203.79.252.193 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madonna's birthdate 

message: Does any know how to pronounce Madonna's last name (Ciccone)? Thanks!
"Chick - ony"  (ony rhymes with "Tony") Rossrs 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last name 

message: I have edited the intro to give it a more encyclopedic feel. The information that has been removed is available elsewhere on Wikipedia in the article
*Madonna's achievements and awards which I have added a link to under the See also section. fritte 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently my edit did not sit well with Downtown723 and my edit was reverted within 20 minutes of being saved. I'm not getting into a revertwar over it, but I would like to know why both the link to Madonna's achievements and awards  and my edit to the intro were removed, since the revert is described as a minor edit.  This is the edit I made. fritte 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Downtown723, but while you are waiting for him to comment, maybe you could read through WP:Lead.  The lead is meant to be a summary of the article that follows and a long article such as this could and probably should have at least 3 paragraphs to adequately deal with it.  If you have concerns about the POV tone of it, perhaps you could add that she is often criticised and maligned (this would be ok as the article contains discussion of this nature) to balance the POV.   The lead is by no means perfect, and anything that can be done to improve it is a good thing to aim for, but just deleting most of it, doesn't improve it.  Also, I will move this to the bottom of the page as new discussions should go at the bottom. Rossrs 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I can't believe there's no picture or mention of the pointy bra! 71.222.200.138 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointy Bra 

message: I just saw on M6 Channel Madonna has sold more than 350 million records worldwide making her (according to the add) the world best selling female artist ever breaking then Mariah Carey record. I'm searching for the link. Readerweb 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  350 million records worldwide : World Best Selling Female Artist