Misplaced Pages

Talk:Madonna: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:22, 8 April 2013 editIndianBio (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers61,813 edits →Forbes says she isn't a billionaire: re← Previous edit Revision as of 18:27, 8 April 2013 edit undoA21sauce (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,752 edits →Madonna's current boyfriend, Brahim Zaibat: responsesNext edit →
Line 322: Line 322:


::Aichik, caling an user ageist is broderline making personal attacks when Binsternet has clearly notified that the information is ] and ]. And are you Madonna's manager or someone from her inside circle that you know what she would want or not? Stop adding a content which others have opposed and have given reasons why it cannot be done through Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. And another thing, don't bring that tone with which you spoke at the Knowles talk page, I will have none of it. Consider this a cute warning. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) ::Aichik, caling an user ageist is broderline making personal attacks when Binsternet has clearly notified that the information is ] and ]. And are you Madonna's manager or someone from her inside circle that you know what she would want or not? Stop adding a content which others have opposed and have given reasons why it cannot be done through Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. And another thing, don't bring that tone with which you spoke at the Knowles talk page, I will have none of it. Consider this a cute warning. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, ] I won't stop adding content ''that you personally don't approve of.'' This is Misplaced Pages. And don't bring up a tone I demonstrated in frustration ''a month and a half ago''; you're acting like a cantankerous husband.--] (]) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages isn't here to list everyone she dates; I believe there is a website for that. If the relationship has relevancy, it should be included. Do we know when they began dating, even? <font face="Old English Text MT" size="3em">]</font> 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Misplaced Pages isn't here to list everyone she dates; I believe there is a website for that. If the relationship has relevancy, it should be included. Do we know when they began dating, even? <font face="Old English Text MT" size="3em">]</font> 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't listing all of her boyfriends, just the most recent and significant one. Come on, no reportage of anything for FOUR YEARS since her divorce.--] (]) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


:Nopes, Brahim Zaibat is a dancer on her MDNE Tore. That's all, I think he should be listed on the tour page. Butthen again, we are all ''ageist'', so we don't care. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 04:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC) :Nopes, Brahim Zaibat is a dancer on her MDNE Tore. That's all, I think he should be listed on the tour page. Butthen again, we are all ''ageist'', so we don't care. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 04:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:27, 8 April 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madonna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Former featured articleMadonna is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleMadonna has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 28, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
January 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 23, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 23, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 5, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 8, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
May 15, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
September 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Maintained

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madonna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMadonna Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconElectronic music Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRock music High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconR&B and Soul Music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMichigan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York City Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKabbalah (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChildren's literature Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Things you can do edit
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Music Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Top-importance).
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Logs and discussions:

Discussions:

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved: there is insufficient support for the move and reasoned opposition against it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

– I understand that this issue has been discussed multiple times in the past, but I still feel that this is a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only article on the disambiguation that could compete with Madonna the singer for primary topic would be Mary, and even so the term "Madonna" is only used thirteen times in the article, not one of which is a notable term presented in the introduction. Of thw two, the singer is much more notable in this naming, and deserves the primary naming. This would require moving the disambiguation to Madonna (disambiguation) but I couldn't get the multimove template working. WikiRedactor (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I repaired the multimove template for you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. She's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this name. Status 04:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    Not according to the several previous move discussions, nor to those who participated in this discussion earlier this year that proposed to make Madonna (art) the primary topic instead. You may want to be more specific in your comment. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is about a three to one ratio of page views in favor of Madonna only looking at the first three pages on the dis page, but that really is not enough to change the status quo (I tend to favor at least 4:1, and preferably 5:1 over the next most viewed, though this is not listed as a criteria in the guidelines, which says more than all others, a criteria that has always been met). Never mind that Madonna has sold more records than any other (female) performer. Unfortunately there is something else that is very well known that Madonna was named after. Apteva (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. If you google Madonna -wikipedia, 29 of the top 30 results refer to the singer. The other one refers to Madonna University in Michigan. A topic is primary, "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kauffner (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the status quo was just confirmed in a well-attended discussion at the art page - Zzyzx11 gives the link above. Nobody denies Mad gets far more hits, but that is actually not the only factor in considering "primary topic". The nominator and supporters should read the guidelines again. There is an element of forum-shopping here, as the first debate only closed 2 weeks ago. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last four requested moves, which all ended in no move: January 2007, April 2008, June 2010 and August 2012. The arguments are the same this time 'round; the result should be the same. Binksternet (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as before. Doesn't need yet another discussion. Just because Madonna fans think she's the primary topic and they and the media write a lot about her on the internet does not wipe out centuries of common primary usage as an artistic depiction of the Virgin Mary. And to stop the inevitable comments (as before) that this discussion is being hijacked by Christians, I'd just like to say that I'm not in the slightest bit religious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment & Suggestion: I did, in fact, review the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines, and saw the following:
    A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
    Misplaced Pages's traffic statistics says the art form had 11,035 view this month; the singer had 266,178 hits and is the 468th most visited article in February. So it certainly looks like the singer is the more popular and searched of the two.
    A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
    The height of Madonna's career was nearly 30 years ago, yet she still pulls through among the most viewed articles in the English Misplaced Pages. Yes, Madonna the painting has been around significantly longer, but its page doesn't even get a fraction of the views that Madge does.
    If the page is moved, what would be wrong with adding this at the top of the article: "This article is about the entertainer. For the pictorial or sculptured representations of Mary, Mother of Jesus, see Madonna (art). For other uses, see Madonna (disambiguation)." I would think this satisfies all, as it would direct those who perhaps think of the art as the primary topic to the article they are looking for. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
But you missed " In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." That is the case here. Yes, if it was moved, such a hatnote would of course be needed. But it won't be moved. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Is that you impression, or have you, somehow, worked it out. Ceoil (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not really. Have you no respect, whatever you might think, for two thousand years of belief and iconic tradition. But anyway, lets be honest, this is all just trolling anyway, it aint going to happen. Ceoil (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless it is in the policy, and has been for years, and despite the objections of some like yourself, the current proposal to remove it is clearly failing. So let's implement the policy we have. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, all that was in there "for years" is an exception for recentism for WP:VITAL articles, which practically never applied, so was essentially irrelevant. Then, only in 2011, did the consideration for recentism get expanded to apply to any articles in terms of "long-term significance".

It's simply not possible to follow this "policy". It's like changing the law to say green means go and red means stop but only when you're hungry; green means stop and red means go when you're not hungry. Now, everybody, follow that rule! It's utter foolishness to even try to follow a rule like this. --B2C 23:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose for all the reasons given above, which I will not reiterate. Ms. Ciccone has a surname, why not use it and avoid any confusion altogether? Mannanan51 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Mannanan51
  • Support. Clearly wins by any definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, I don't think this is a case of recentism. Madonna has been around for a while and I'm certain she will remain the primary topic at least until everyone born in the 1980s is dead (and perhaps much longer than that). Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons stated, and one more thought: How long is her staying power? The article title should not be just for the next 5 to 10 years but potentially indefinitely. At some point she will pass into retirement and mentions of the her will decline. Would we go back and change the article then? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree to oppose, but not for the last reason - yes, we would. At the moment we have this debate one a year anyway, sadly. Johnbod (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is Madonna's legal name?

The article implies that she legally shortened her name to just Madonna. However, I couldn't find a statement and source in the article that addresses that matter. The last discussion I read about this matter (before posting this) took place in 2011, and didn't provide any sources that confirmed a name change. The only (somewhat) reliable source I found regarding this was one of Madonna's interviews back in 1985, where she states her full name is Madonna Louisa Veronica Ciccone Penn. (http://mgross.com/writing/books/the-more-things-change/bonus-chapters/madonna-catholic-girl-material-girl-post-liberation-woman/) Granted it's outdated since she's been divorced for a while, but it's something to start with. Whether or not it is determined that her legal name is her birth name or simply Madonna, we need to add a reliable source for either one; I'm surprised we don't already have one. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting the article says her birth name was "Madonna Louise Ciccone", when she herself says her legal name (in 1985) was "Madonna Louisa Veronica Ciccone Penn".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh, it was probably just in error.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I just found an image of her divorce papers. It states her name as being Madonna Louise Ciccone. Of course, a lot of things could have happened in that time.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Something else I found The letterhead identified the sender as “Mrs. Ritchie” — Madonna’s legal name during her eight-year marriage to British director Guy Ritchie.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Definitely valid starting points! Hopefully if we dig a little deeper we'll find something a little bit more recent. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Lawsuit from October 2012 (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/110985/brando-enterprises-lp-v-madonna-louise-ciccone-et-al/summary/) I think we may have something here! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and add this in the article. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Great! I wonder what happened to Veronica.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Pop... Again

A debate was started on February 13th, to discuss the use of the alias Queen of Pop in the artlicles introductions. Next day, I said that I was going to participate when I had time and if it was necessary that I will start a new debate. However, I never had the time to get involve and the discussion was solved the same day with all votes against the change. It is not the first time that this topic is discussed; however I believe that the arguments presented were inaccurate. Therefore, I will like to present new arguments.

Madonna is not the only artist that has been regarded as the Queen of Pop; several new and old artists have received the same title, but the references to support the use of those aliases in singers like Diana Ross are unfounded and inconsequential. In this specific example, the article states the Ross is the reigning queen of pop culture, which is like stating that Andy Warhol is the King of Pop (pop, translates to Pop art and Pop culture, not necessarily pop music) or Marisol Escobar. As well, in the Article Honorific nicknames in popular music, there is a reference that is used on three different artists which states that during the 1990s Mariah Carey, Celine Dion and Whitney Houston were regarded as the Queen of Pop, and the problem with this is that is stated as a question and not as a fact, also that we are no longer in that decade and the three are named as queens at the same time. Focusing on Celine Dion, there is a reference from a Canadian source stating Our Queen of Pop, which means that she is referred with that title in Canada and not necessarily around the world. These reference and information irregularities are evident on several other artists.

Since 1980 until now Madonna has been regarded as the Queen of Pop by several sources throughout the world, and this fact only applies to Madonna’s particular case which can be easily demonstrated with several sources. Some references (four decades: 80's, 90's, 00's, 10's)

1980's
1990's
2000's
2010's

All litter examples. This means that she has been named the Queen of Pop more than any other artist, even more than Houston with all the obituaries. Several music critics and journalists continue to regard Madonna as the “eternal” and “indisputable” Queen of Pop, and not only in English sources but in other languages as well like French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc. Are there references from different years and languages that support the alias of Queen of Pop in other artists? I don’t think so. Madonna is clearly regarded as the Queen of Pop worldwide, not only by the press but by sociologists, critics and other intellectuals, and especially by the IFPI and the Guinness World Records book.

In order to maintain neutrality (we introduce information with all its sides and shades and we don’t have to act as judges of the information) and to present trustworthy information I suggest:

  • Mantain all aliases in the introduction stated in a way to prevent biases, and keeping in consideration if these aliases apply to all the countries in the world or just the United States and the United Kingdom.
  • Keep all aliases in the infobox and the introduction
  • Keep all aliases only in the infobox

Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The only actual mention of her being the Queen of Pop in the article is "In 2011, Rolling Stone declared her as the all-time Queen of Pop and stated that'"Madonna is a musical icon without peer.'" I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of women have been cited as being the Queen of Pop, however, as Rolling Stone states, she is the "all-time", so yes, it should be included more in the article. To what extent, I don't know. I think it would be a good amount doing it as much as it is for Michael Jackson.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Status thank your for your comment. I clarify one thing: Rolling Stone is not the only means that it has named Madonna as the eternal or undisputed "Queen of Pop" are many and not only English-language media; To cite a few examples:
  • The Luxe Chronicles (2012):
  • UK Daily Mail (2008 +):
  • ImpreMedia (2012 +):

I can continue to appoint more ... Until this It is exactly the opposite with other artists. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. I was just using it as an example as it was already in the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Personally, I don't have much interest with this topic anymore. But honestly, almost all English-language reputed media have written Madonna as the Queen of Pop. Yes, several female artists are labeled the same, but NONE of them are as extensive and enduring as Madonna (80s, 90s, 00s, 10s). Just type Google the media you want to find for the title by using this searching format, such as BBC like this >> "site:bbc.co.uk Madonna Queen of Pop" or CNN like this >> "site:cnn.com Madonna Queen of Pop" — Bluesatellite (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we just mention that she is the Queen of Pop per universal media coverage. Not a local artist you know, but its the universal press, academics, journalists calling her that. So illustrating it in the legacy and the header would do. —Indian:BIO · 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment: A good range of source material (some with dubious content, I'm not sure whether "pop queen" is honorific or colloquial in some) which I think probably would warrant a larger mention in legacy and in the last paragraph of the lead. I am strongly opposed to it being adopted as an alias of some sorts, I don't think that can be established by the source material in the same way as it has for Michael Jackson. —Jennie | ☎ 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Jennie--x I disagree with your point. What is MJ's deal here?. I mean, We must analyze each case, in this context (Queen of Pop) You can clearly see that Madonna has been aknowldegded as queen of pop globally in the opposite with other artists. There are also artists like Shakira, Thalía, Gloria Estefan who have been called "Queen of Latin Pop" but also "The Latin Madonna". Gloria Trevi or Yuri: "The Mexican Madonna". Rihanna or Beyoncé "The Black Madonna". Lady Gaga or Britney Spears: "The New Madonna" and more ("The Japanese Madonna", "Madonna of Asia"...). Sorry but no, your argument has no consistency. And yes, I agree with you about extending this on the Legacy section but It is our duty to appoint as such in the lead that Madonna is well recognized, because this is what an introduction is about, isn't it?. Chrishonduras (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read my comment carefully, I say I agree with a mention in the lead, just not the term being adopted as an alias. The problem is that Michael Jackson was synonymous with the term (and there are sources that say this), but the same isn't said of Madonna. I agree she has received the title substantially (perhaps even the most), but to argue that it should be an alias (that is, it should be adopted as an "Other name" in the infobox or in the first sentence) is unfounded. —Jennie | ☎ 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, no problem. I'm so sorry because I'm not a native English speaker (I didn't understand your message =). One thing, remember that many times Michael Jackson has been named "King of Pop" on par with Madonna as "Queen of Pop" (some books: , , , , , , ....). Beyond that, Michael Jackson was/is/still synonymous of "King of Pop", certainly, and about Madonna is clear that She is the most perpetual "Queen of Pop" (globally and all possible contexts; in fact, though not abundant as MJ, some media have said the nickname Queen of Pop is basically a synonym in she). The MJ's lead say: "Often referred to as the 'King of Pop', or by his initials MJ"; with Madonna not is applicable, but mention may be made in different ways introducing. As you say Jennie: "last paragraph of the lead" or in this context: Madonna is known for continuously reinventing both her music and image, and for retaining a standard of autonomy within the recording industry. She attained immense popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV. Critics have praised her diverse musical productions which have also been known to induce controversy.

What do others think?. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: While the term was used as a temporary nick name on other female singers, it definately became an alias to Madonna. --Watquaza (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Avoid These peacock terms are best avoided in Misplaced Pages. They are unencyclopedic and ill defined. I have just come from a similar RfC about whether London or NYC should be called the 'financial capital of the world'. There were plenty of sources supporting both cities but the consensus was not to say that about either city. Even deciding what such terms mean requires OR, which is not our job. Let us stick to reporting facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! Well I agree with that he put the alias in the article. I know that many artists have been named as "Queen of Pop", as indicated Chrishonduras, but we all know that Madonna is the only "Queen of Pop". They say newspapers, magazines, specialized in music critics, etc. Summing up, I support the inclusion in the lead. Greetings! --190.228.234.64 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I approve of the title "Queen of Pop" to e included in the lead. Madonna's the very first singer to have received that title, was referred to that countless times and is the most successful female musician in history. Just like Michael Jackson, she was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Israell (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Madonna's current boyfriend, Brahim Zaibat

In the March 2013 issue of W magazine, Giovanna Battaglia revealed Madonna's current boyfriend, Brahim Zaibat, one of her backup dancers. One editor, a male one I might add, has dismissed this when I tried to add it claiming it's not an important information, even though all of Taylor Swift's 2-month-long relationships are listed. This is a clear example of ageism (whatever the Wiki code for that may be). Just because the mainstream media delves in it, does not mean Misplaced Pages should! With the listing of professional accomplishments and marriages, the Madonna article is quite dull and it makes her seem like a singing dancing machine. (Which she is to some extent but you know what I mean, what about the human side.) What does she sing about if not romance? Besides, nothing about her love life has been in the press since the divorce from Guy Richie, which was OVER FOUR YEARS AGO. Ageism. So listing awards and sales might feel impressive, the way this profile reads now she might as well be for a dull sports star. And a dull sports star she is not.--Aichik (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As Binsternet nicely put it, its a case of WP:RECENTISM, And Taylor's business is in her article. Including her flings like Brahim, JEsus Luz etc is clearly not a good way of writing and is clearly unnecessary. Also, please stop this bullshit about ageism and tone down your wording like "a male one" etc. You are borderline making personal attacks. —Indian:BIO · 06:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a well-written article unlike the Taylor Swift one. Only major themes of Madonna's very complex life and career are introduced. There is no need to talk about ephemeral and minor details such as which boyfriend is the current one, unless there is a big deal made about it throughout the media, which is not the case here. Binksternet (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that jab at the Swift article. The article is generally written well but there is one weak section made of just one paragraph listing Swift's relationships. The paragraph does not say anything about Swift herself, just who she dated. The big difference between the Swift article and this bit about a dancer boyfriend of Madonna's is that every boyfriend listed on Swift's page is already famous. If Madonna suddenly started dating a famous new boyfriend then I'm sure there would be many accounts of it written in the media, and we would then list the guy here. Better still is to tell the reader how the relationship affected those involved—make it encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What about your tone, IndianBio? Hold up the mirror to your own language. Ageism is a real phenomena, you can't discount it or wish it away by saying it's bullshit, and with that bullying kind of language you perpetuate it. Binksternet, um, last time, I checked, the Taylor Swift article was considered a good article. You are letting your own bias taint your editing and should perhaps take a break from this article. Who are you to say Brahim is not an important boyfriend? I work in media so I know that that kind of information has to be cleared on a couple of levels: Madonna herself most likely doesn't want to embarrass herself with some one-night-stand type. Put yourself in other people's shoes!--38.98.107.82 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your addition again, as nobody here has spoken up for its inclusion except you, and two editors have spoken against it. You must achieve consensus here for its inclusion.
My arguments continue to be that the bit is not important to Madonna's life and career, that it needs to have more media coverage, that it needs to be given more notice, that Brahim Zaibat should be named repeatedly before we include him. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Aichik, caling an user ageist is broderline making personal attacks when Binsternet has clearly notified that the information is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. And are you Madonna's manager or someone from her inside circle that you know what she would want or not? Stop adding a content which others have opposed and have given reasons why it cannot be done through Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. And another thing, don't bring that tone with which you spoke at the Knowles talk page, I will have none of it. Consider this a cute warning. —Indian:BIO · 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Indian:BIO I won't stop adding content that you personally don't approve of. This is Misplaced Pages. And don't bring up a tone I demonstrated in frustration a month and a half ago; you're acting like a cantankerous husband.--Aichik (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't here to list everyone she dates; I believe there is a website for that. If the relationship has relevancy, it should be included. Do we know when they began dating, even? Zach 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't listing all of her boyfriends, just the most recent and significant one. Come on, no reportage of anything for FOUR YEARS since her divorce.--Aichik (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nopes, Brahim Zaibat is a dancer on her MDNE Tore. That's all, I think he should be listed on the tour page. Butthen again, we are all ageist, so we don't care. —Indian:BIO · 04:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Forbes says she isn't a billionaire

Should this be taken into account: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2013/03/28/why-madonna-isnt-on-the-forbes-billionaires-list/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.113.198 (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow that certainly is a new insight? Let's see what other third party sources come up with on this. The billionaire issue is reported through a number of reputed sources though. —Indian:BIO · 08:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't have it's facts straight in multiple cases. To point one out would be how much MDNA sold. That doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but it shows that the writer isn't sure what he is writing about. Zach 08:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Zach, would you explain a bit more? —Indian:BIO · 08:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
For example, they say she got $22 million from her MDNA Tour, while Billboard says she got an estimated $32 million. Billboard also notes Madonna got $1.5 million from sales of MDNA. Despite all of this, Forbes did not list her on their biggest-moneymakers of 2012 list, while Billboard actually had her at #1 with making $34,577,308.62 in 2012. I've also read that apparently Madonna and Forbes got into some disagreement when she wouldn't let them have access to her accounts to see how much money she actually has (don't have a citation for that). If Forbes is having a bias against Madonna, then no, they should not be taken into account. We should look into this more. Zach 09:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
To me it seems that Forbes is taking into account all the expenses necessary to make a profit, that Madonna cannot be said to have grossed this or that figure because she had expenses. This is simple accounting, not animosity or bias. Binksternet (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This all started from the NY Post which was quoting a fake web site. They tried to save face by removing it once it came to light. This is typical of The Post. It also helped with the stories published that she's now a "billionaire" who won't help her homeless brother. Sounds worse than writing "millionaire" in the headline, which suits the media just fine. She's not a billionaire. Partyclams (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Herein lies one of the core problesm with Misplaced Pages. It relies on verifiability and not the truth. Since there are more third party sources claiming the billionaire thing, I don't know what to say. Misplaced Pages will even say Jesus was born in moon, of enough third party reliable sources claim it is. You get the drift. LEt's see what others have to say. User:Status has explained that there are many flaws in the Forbes article also, and Forbes does have an agenda with her, hence I'm not that keen on accepting them as the sole resource for this claim. —Indian:BIO · 06:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to say. Forbes also copies of websites like Misplaced Pages or Amazon. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
They're quoting the NY Post article, which sourced a fake web site. Forbes is THE web site. If they state the info is incorrect, it's incorrect. Wealth is their business, and they announce the richest celebs in the world each year. They're the ones who are always sourced for others. Forbes also broke down the figures. There's no way she's a millionaire. The NY Post is a tab rag anyway, so perhaps I should cut them some slack. They could have done actual research though. Partyclams (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly a reliable source it would be when it is proved that their research is folly and the said publication is seen to have an issue with the discussed subject previously. It is not untrue, just that its plain biased. Teh Forbes article, as User:Status pointed out, is mistake laden, so what is to say that their whole research is faulty as well? And NY Post being whatever it is your personal preference, not a place here. —Indian:BIO · 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Categories: