" 

 Can we please have a discussion over the following: 

 1. Do we need to list all of Madonna's awards and chart placements in the intro?  Wouldn't wikilinks to the awards and achievements section (kind of like how it is now, like ""Madonna has received several awards, etc."") be better for the sake of neutrality and no POV? 

 2. The sales data issue continually goes back and forth.  We get 200, 270, 275, 200 and 75 singles.. Shouldn't we stick to data that has source links (i.e. the WB press release and the Guinness page)?   

 3. Who is deleting the source links from the intro?  I assume it's the same person who keeps inflating the sales numbers.  

 4. I'm not sure madonna ever ""earned the title"" ""Queen of Pop"". It's not really a title at all, not at least an official title.  It's just a nickname from the fans and the media. Moreover, is putting that she ""earned"" it because of her successful albums, controversial image, etc. a bit too POV?  Again, do we even agree it's a ""title"" she ""earned""? Isn't it better to say ""she's known for her successful etc."" and she is ""commonly referred to as Queen of Pop""? sounds a bit more neutral to me.  

 5. referring to her as singer, actress, pop icon, author, mother, brother, sister, etc.  Would just referring to her as an ""American entertainer be so bad?"" I'm fine w/ it either way, i'm just curious what other people thing. 

 6.  The idea of the intro, so I thought, was briefly summarizing the article. The way it is now, it says she catapulted to success, she's controversial, etc., won lots of awards, etc., and is currently promoting a new album. Is this a good enough summary? Does it cover all of the basics of madonna? 

 Don't flame me, a lot of the stuff I put back in is reverts from other authors, and I'm trying to open a dialogue to make the intro less pov."