Talk:Madonna

This may be a bit premature, but since this is her most commercially and critically successful work since the OG Confessions, I added a short mention of Confessions II to the lead, trying to integrate it with the chronological flow of her most noteworthy albums (Like A Virgin, True Blue, Immaculate Collection mentioned first, then Like A Prayer, Ray of Light and Music, then Confessions and finally Confessions II). PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hard Candy IMO has more reason to be mentioned in the lead than Confessions II; it was her last album with a major hit, and topped 37 countries’ charts. I just don’t really consider Confessions II that notable within her career. I mean the all the albums listed in the lead are bestselling albums or listed in RS’s greatest albums list. Confessions II seems like more of an outlier. But I’m open to see what others say 750h+ 04:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree with 750h+. Having a cute rating of 80+ on Metacritic is just not enough, when we are summarizing a career with this huge size of discography. We are talking about "all-time" criteria here, either all-time bestsellers list or all-time critics list. Confessions II is neither at least for now. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

While Hard Candy performed well commercially, critically it was seen as the beginning of the end for her career; Confessions II is a return to form, becoming her highest-rated album since 2000. It also improved upon the sales of Rebel Heart and Madame X, who quickly departed the charts as soon as they came. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the reversal of my removal of the use of "of all time," I did want to point to some discussions arguing against the use of the set phrase "of all time" on Wikipedia:

• 2006: Talk:Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima#"possibly_the_most_reproduced_photograph_of_all_time"
• 2006: Talk:List_of_Go_players#WP:WEASEL_and_WP:PEACOCK
• 2007: Talk:Whitney_Houston/Archive_2#article_definitly_needs_more_editing
• 2007: Talk:Michael_Jordan/Archive_3#Round_two..._Still_awaiting_a_valid_reason
• 2009: Talk:Jascha_Heifetz#Weasel_phrase?
• 2010: Talk:Elena_Obraztsova#Hyperbole
• 2013: Talk:Elvis_Presley/Archive_30#Elvis_is_considered_the_greatest_recording_artist_of_all_time
• 2015: Talk:All_About_That_Bass/Archive_2#Gushing,_non-POV_wording_and_other_stuff
• 2015 Talk:Gazi Mazharul Anwar#A brief explanation of the significant clean-up I'm doing on this article.
• 2017: Talk:Manny_Pacquiao/Archives/2017#"Pacquiao_is_considered_by_many_to_be_one_of_the_greatest_professional_boxers_of_all_time."_removed.
• 2019 Talk:Oliver_Mtukudzi#I_think_this_is_ridiculous
• 2021: Talk:Mariah_Carey/Archive_19#regarded_as_one_of_the_greatest_female_singers_of_all_time
• 2021: Talk:Robot_Odyssey#lead_description
• 2022: Talk:Michael_Schumacher/Archive_9#Why_removed_he_is_the_greatest_of_all_time
• 2024: Talk:Appetite_for_Destruction/Archive_1#Opinion_not_substantiated
• 2025: Talk:Martha_Argerich#Weasel_descriptor

If "of all time" stays, per WP:STATUSQUO so be it. I did want to share these to illustrate where my removal comes from, though. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

JingleJim's change from "of all time" to "in history" is appropriate. It conveys the same idea but without the ridiculous but common hyperbole. "Of all time" includes "all" of the 13.8 billion years that the universe has existed, only a tiny fraction of which have had widely popular human entertainers. The only occasions we should repeat "of all time" are when quoting a source, for instance Rolling Stone saying that she "remains one of the greatest pop acts of all time". We should never say "of all time" in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

A demand for {fact} had been added in the lead -which means "citation needed"- for this claim: "Regarded as one of the most influential musicians in history". First I had replaced the word "musicians" by "singers" which is more apt, after reading the content of legacy. @Bluesatellite: has erased the demand for a {fact}. When a reader challenges a user to bring a source supporting a claim, you have to give it precisely which one is. A vague and lame edit summary "it's sourced on Legacy section. This article has gone through WP:FA just recently" won't be enough. I advise them to be precise and to reach a compromise. M. was never rated in the list of the best musicians of all-time. She was praised for composing and her gift to create hooks: that is what is advanced on Legacy section. Carliertwo (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

She is acknownledged as a composer on Legacy section. Carliertwo (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You're definitely wrong . Ironically, Madonna is not even on the Rolling Stone's 200 Greatest Singers of All Time, but she is on the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time and the 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time. In what world do you think she is more praised as a *singer* instead of musician? Bluesatellite (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This 2025 Spin source sounds like IA content (no author). The right link is not yahoo BTW: it is a direct link to the website. .

The second source is a book with no famous music journalists announced: in fact, no author appears on the cover of this book... and the text is unavailable. Not a reliable source.

The 3rd and 4th sources are about "composers": they are not qualified for the claim of "musicians". That's original research.

This whole claim is thin. Only two sources support this dubious claim including one which is not good.

And none of these two sources are included in this wiki article which is weird.

Therefore Bluesatellite advanced lame things, as nothing on Legacy section is supporting this claim for now. Carliertwo (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite could you spare me your patronizing tone, please. Carliertwo (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Had @Bluesatellite read my 2nd reply above their post, they would have seen that I was mentioning this. By hindsight and what's on Legacy section, the term "composer" or "songwriter" (if you prefer) would be more apt instead of "musicians" for the lead. Carliertwo (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That article was written by Spin team, which is reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. Please read Musician article on Wikipedia, so you could understand what its definition is. You repeatedly say that someone composing music is not a musician", but you're blatantly wrong. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A songwriter is someone who composes the tunes, according to each dictionnary.

A musician is someone who plays an instrument.

Actually, MJ was a composer who didn't really play instruments but he whistled all the melodies by heart to studio session instrumentists.

What is advanced in another Wiki article is not relevant.

Only sources related to the subject of this article are.

You are twisting my words. I didn't write or mean what you advanced here: "You repeatedly say that someone composing music is not a musician". This is silly. Doing short cuts is bad faith. Carliertwo (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by-comment: Perhaps something like "recording artist", simply "artist" or "popular music artist" and alternatively, rewrite the sentence to indicate that she has been included in influential-artist rankings published by outlets such as Rolling Stone could work. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Regarded as...songwriters and performers seems more accurate. Has "musician" always meant anyone who composes, etc? Have always thought that musicians are those who play musical instruments, so the musician article's definition is new to me. I doubt if I'm alone in that and it is just me who has been confused my whole life. I see that the first sentence has been truncated at the musician page per the dictionary definition: "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music." has been rendered as "One who composes, conducts, or performs music" and removes "especially instrumental music." Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations, you learn something new today. That's exactly the purpose of an encyclopedia. Madonna performs music, composes music, produces music, and play musical intruments, so she's a musician. Just like Drake (musician), Khaled (musician), or Snow (musician). Also as per above, Spin magazine and Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly call her one of the greatest "musicians" in history. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Why was the definition of "Musician" truncated at its page to removed "especially instrumental music", which I'd think is the standard and common understanding of the word? Madonna is not known for playing instruments, which is where the "especially" for that definition comes in. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Musician is a broad term. If someone is mostly known for playing guitar, they are called guitarist, someone playing drum is called drummer, someone playing multiple instruments is called multi-instrumentalist. Madonna has been referred to as a "musician" by tons of sources, including Rolling Stone, Forbes, Billboard, Pitchfork etc. I don't even know why such a minor thing is becoming a problem here. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Because of those pesky words left out of the first sentence of 'musician': "...especially instrumental music" and the fact that the language under discussion here is calling her one of the most influential musicians of all time. On her first seven or so albums she played one instrument on only one of them. A cowbell. She is best known as a singer, songwriter, and performer, not as someone who plays an instrument. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You're forcing your own understanding of a term. Someone doesn't have to play instruments to be called "musician". Drake (musician) has never performed any instruments. I have provided reliable sources. So I stop here, because personal opinions would be endless and subjective. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It's the dictionary definition, not just my understanding or personal opinion. Have added the full definition used by the source to the truncated first sentence of Musician. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Especially =/= Only. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly.

This is what I wrote here.

As nothing on Legacy section advances that claim in the lead, this has to be changed.

As three users don't share the opinion of Bluesatellite, the word 'musicians' should be withdrawn and replaced by songwriters, before making a new sentence per the content of the section. I can't do it myself as I have already done two edits on that part of the lead. Carliertwo (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm more inclined toward "recording artist", "music artist" or simply "artist". It's a common, fairly generic description used in some industry lists, such as Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time and VH1's 100 Greatest Women in Music, both of which included her. However, I'll support the outcome reached by the discussion. Regards --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

"Recording artist" or "music artist" would be more suitable than just the term "artist" to me. Carliertwo (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Why doesn't the intro paragraph mention that she goes only by her first name? See the "Adele" article, which states "Adele Laurie Blue Adkins, known mononymously as Adele". Madonna almost never uses her last name. MisterZed (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The phrase that was added at some point this year by an user and that has a discussion related to how and why is it needed? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but many other articles on Wikipedia also state "known mononymously as..." MisterZed (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Added by people under the fallacy that "if A then B". Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, what you ask for is there: Madonna goes by her first name, and has used the name and trademark since 1979 according to the World Intellectual Property Organization.[1] Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say that here because the article title just being "Madonna" already makes it obvious she tends to be known by her first name, making such proposed text a needless redundancy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)