Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Visit these great anti-Madonna sites:

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Blog / Site (NEW!)

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Site (site closed as of May 2017)

madonnasuxx's Anti Madonna Site (Internet Archive)

Help us keep ads off our board!



Add us to your bookmarks!
(works in FireFox and Internet Explorer)
Please read the Discussion Board Rules before joining the board!
New Madonna haters: Come introduce yourself!
Board Help & Updates

Stop Forum Spam

  Full List of Emoticons
Avatars
Thread Indexes:

One Stop Index Thread | Persons | Subjects A - L | Subjects M - Z | Aisha's Lawsuit

Life Universe Everything Forum Index

Barf-inducing Madonna links or news -


Flea on Twitter: @fleadip / Link to Flea's Twitter Page | Follow admin Melissa on Twitter @melissatreglia


BREAKING & IMPORTANT MADONNA-RELATED NEWS:

See the "Shout Box" Section at the bottom of the discussion board's main page for the latest anti- Madonna news and links

Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Attention! Wikipedia and Boobpedia Lies; Fraud on multi-user information websites
Topic Started: Feb 13 2009, 12:28 PM (6,138 Views)
SuperAmanda
Member Avatar
Ray Of Fright
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I cannot begin to tell you how offensive the amount of doctored and false information about Mankdonna is on wikipedia and on Boobpedia.

Firstly, and this is just AWFUL, madonna's wikipedia filmography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_filmography

That might as well include each time she walked near a movie theater and passed wind, includes the most offense section that is just swimming in lies called "Film roles associated with Madonna"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_filmo...ed_with_Madonna

Notice how when she was dropped from the film or acted like a skanky hag that's conveniently left out. The desperation of madonna fans is just pathetic.

eg:"This project (originally called "Angie, I Says") was created with Madonna in mind for the starring role, but then scheduling conflicts arose with the filming of Dangerous Game."

Uh no, she actually acted like a grasping control freak, was not right for the part and she was canned, then she acted like a compete banshee and started ragging in the papers with these badly worded attempts at a stinging rebuke.

half of those films mentioned in wikipedia she was NEVER attached too, it was all just rumor.

anyway if anyone has citations and references end them to me and i will redit the information. Most of the "facts" cited have no references which makes sense because they're 100% false! And while Boobpedia is just a site for adults, wikipedia is referenced by the entire world and her articles need to be overhauled beacuse their is enough misinformation and lies being pimped by her beloved media without the people's information being altered too. :grr:

Secondly, Boobpedia is a fun, silly boobcentric website cataloging larger chested celebs, amateurs and adult entertainment stars in a wikipedia format. They have C cup minimum which means no Mandonna and happily for about a year she was off the site until some idiot who is into fishnets, fashion designers, latex clothing (get my drift) and other metro-sexual garbage put her in there. I protested and sent in over ten photos throughout all her ENTIRE career that show that, unless she going to have an abortion or is breast feeding, that she can't measure up and is actually concave.
That big foot craw photo just sold at Christie's proves it as well.

http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Madonna

I tried to change the photo and add photos her from Swept Away bikini shots but the aforementioned editor of the page flipped out. Claiming manky's own information is the most reliable source.

Thankfully the Website creator allowed me to put in two paragraphs about how she only had something close to C cup for about a year and that she NEVER has had these hourglass measurements she still claims of 34-24-34. I remember Joan Rivers getting her measurements on her talk show, the same ones used for the D*ck Tracy costumes, which she had to gain weight for and her cup size was a B/C


My response to the whacked out madonna defender:

"The biggest lesson of Madonna is that she is a liar and a cheat about everything and everything is for drawing attention to herself. so of course she is going to carefully hype herself as a c with an hourglass figure because that is much more preferable than what she really is: a b cup with a boyish/athlete's figure.

Other nudes from that era show here a 100% flat chested frame. She was shrewd enough to know that exploiting tits that were bigger than Debbie Harry's, Joan Jett's or Cyndi Lauper's would make her stand out when anyone who was not supper skinny was unheard of. Hype city on a pair that's frankly very average with almost no aureoles-small nips add size to even the smallest breasts visually as everyone knows. Madonna is the queen of hype-it's her legacy, it's like the sky being blue.Her fans always point to shots of when she was breastfeeding to prove she has chest, which frankly does not count in this case.

The only sources of Madonna's obvious fake and doctored stats are her OWN PR. the same PR that said she had a 'happy marriage.' one can see with their own eyes that she is not only a borderline C cup but in no way has an hourglass figure. She may have had a slight C cup from being heavier TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR- give or take a few pregnancies exploited for photo shoots, but all her photos ALWAYS show -VERY CLEARLY- a very narrow hipped frame with no hip to waist delineation. It's in all her photos, esp photo number two below where she is clearly an A/B at the most without the cones. readers need to not be mislead that's why the obvious must be stated. "
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
edge6678
Member Avatar
Shanghi-ed Away
[ *  *  * ]
someone should end all the lies of the hag on the mentioed sites above. I agree SuperAmanda. If someone should re edit that information they should do so in a honest manner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Just letting everyone know that rather than merge this thread with the 'Internet' thread that I've placed a link to this thread in the Index pages (in other words, I'm keeping it separate).

You can look for this thread under I > Internet (on the A - L Index page), and on the other index page, the M - Z Index page, under W > Wikipedia.
One of the only reasons I wouldn't bother messing with Wiki pages is that there are some people who are slavishly devoted to them, and five seconds after you've corrected their mistakes, they will log back in and paste back in what they had before.

I don't know if that's true of Madonna related pages, but I bet it is.

It might be futile to try to keep a Madonna page 'honest.'

If that's your thing and you want to keep messing with Madonna Wiki pages, I don't mean to rain on your parade, I'm just speaking personally here.

Regarding Madonna's cup size: I would say that she's had larger cleavage at other points in her life other than pregnancy, but I think it was due to breast implants.

She never seemed very naturally "endowed" (she looks almost down-right flat chested in some photos I've seen of her), so in some photos when she appears larger, it always looked like the work of a cosmetic surgeon (or weight gain).

I really try not to give Madonna's breasts (or certain other body parts) too much thought if I can help it. :puke3:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
anshirk
Member Avatar
madonna go away
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
flea dip
Feb 14 2009, 11:44 AM
One of the only reasons I wouldn't bother messing with Wiki pages is that there are some people who are slavishly devoted to them, and five seconds after you've corrected their mistakes, they will log back in and paste back in what they had before.



I have experienced the same even my account got banned for correcting some information.
I have long since given up logging, the moment you change it the very next second somebody is there to reverse it.

Some politics are being played I think.

On one account they even deleted the history archives of changes made usually they keep an archive for 1-2 years.
They deleted it so I could not access the page I changed so I could not put it back the way it was when I made the changes, so clever of them.

I am not trying to make you lose hopes but,
when you make the changes you must keep a "word file copy" with you so you can again go there and change back what they reversed over and over again as many times you can.

I tried to clarify some false history and they kept believeing their false legends. I gave them full proof of all accounts still they went back to the same old paragraph, no use. It didn't really concern me so I gave up.

But considering madoona I wouldn't give up at all, just keep on doing it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
edge6678
Member Avatar
Shanghi-ed Away
[ *  *  * ]
i'd feel safe using other sites than wikipedia. Maybe the Hag re-edits her own page! :ask:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
noone3
Member Avatar
Desperately Seeking Clarity
[ *  *  *  * ]
I honestly think Wiki allows misinformation because they receive big donations from the people in question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
edge6678
Member Avatar
Shanghi-ed Away
[ *  *  * ]
Good point!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mihoshi Marie
Member Avatar
to whom it may concern
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wikipedia also keeps old versions of the entry pages. I used to love using Wikipedia for school assignments, and then of course, my college said that it can no longer be used in references. Sad thing is, a given Wikipedia entry is usually on the first page of any search engine results.

As for the hag, I think she edits, or at least pays someone to keep her entry the way she wants it to be. I am sure a lot of people do it - even some random prince edited his own Wikipedia entry (this happened last year or so).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuperAmanda
Member Avatar
Ray Of Fright
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I really try not to give Madonna's breasts (or certain other body parts) too much thought if I can help it.


Haha VERY true! Thanks for all your feedback. I recently had great success with re-diting the article so I was being optimistic but you're all correct, with people devoting entire pages to remixes and straight to video dvds.

The only thing amazing about Madonna is the rank stupidity and sad neediness that her fans display.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melissa
Member Avatar
Evil Admin Extraordinaire™

Not that I like thinking about Manny's boobage, but I am and have been a C-cup since high school (although, now that I'm older and have gained some weight, I'm nearly a D), and there's no way she's as busty as I am. If she was, there'd be a slight but noticeable sag to her breasts (due to their mass). She's not big enough to sag.

She looks like an A-cup (as in "not quite a B", as her breasts are clearly smaller than my mom's B-cups). A's and B's are perfectly normal and not at all bad, and it makes no sense to lie about something as silly as one's cup size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuperAmanda
Member Avatar
Ray Of Fright
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah, as Flea said thinking about her body and size is actually very gross!!

I was going through a phase where I was pointing out the lies about celebrity measurements and overly concerned but now with the net, it is clear that they all lie. I do still think, in retrospect that madonna and the media hyped a small set in a such a blatantly false way that it lowered the bar for all this "I hated my womanly curves crap."

Clipping from back then are a joke-it was if she was Mansfield. (I think small is actually superior btw just not on her) Madonna was complaining about "having a voluptuous body" etc etc The media was touting her as "Marilyn's double" and "Marilyns figure" when there was zero curves even then. Even during 85ish when she was not hugely cut she was still 99%linear


As for lies on wikipeda though. Legolas2186, the lying fan **** cruft pov stooge will not alter the fake reviews:

Quote:
 
This view was shared by Kate Muir of The Times, who complimented some of the funny scenes of the film and the re-creation of the 1930s setting. Referring to the surprise of the journalists at watching the film, Muir added "Madonna manages to create scenes which—perhaps to her surprise—had ’em rolling in the aisles at Venice."[53] Still there and he's a lying **** who knows that this will make the film look good to the unknowing.
As stated before he won't remove it. If anyone want to try and raise it they'll be attacked.

Nor will he accept that W.E. is not "W.E" with ONE period! Typical madonna freak wanting control over even the most minute detail! If you make even the kindest most minute changes he flips out. He is a complete psycho.

He added even this lame quote
Quote:
 
"I directed Filth & Wisdom to teach myself about filmmaking... And now, with this self-punishing process of being a producer and a writer and a director, I'm taking the next step."[28]
—Madonna on her decision to direct W.E


Oh jeez, this **** just want up!
Quote:
 
"People have accused Wallis of all kinds of things. They've said that she put a spell on Edward. They've said that she was a hermaphrodite and that he was gay. They've said they were Nazi sympathisers. It's just the usual lynch-mob mentality that descends upon somebody who has something that lots of other people don't have."
—Madonna talking about the accusations on Wallis Simpson.[2]



THEY WERE NAZI SYMPATHIZERS, MADONNA YOU LAME HAG!
Edited by SuperAmanda, Sep 16 2011, 12:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

This was also posted to the "Internet" thread
---------------------
Madonna is #72 on the list. :laugh:

I have never tinkered with the Madonna Wiki page, just for everyone's info. I have never had a desire to fool around with that. I perceive it as being a never-ending battle.

I'm trying to remember if I even have a Wiki account. I might have, come to think of it, but it was years ago, and I don't remember what e mail address or name I signed up with, but my brief foray into Wiki had nothing to do with Madonna while I was on there. I think I was looking at political articles.

I cannot copy and paste their chart, so I am only going to type in a small number of the entries.

The 100 Most-Edited Wikipedia Articles
  • 8:10 AM By MONA CHALABI

    There was a time when bookshelves in homes groaned under the weight of hefty, leather-bound encyclopedias. Those books might have been expensive, but the authors were, in theory at least, held accountable by their publishers. Wikipedia, for better or worse, changed that with its “openly editable” model. But just how “editable” is “openly editable”?

    Every day, Wikipedia publishes a meta history of the revisions made to all pages on the site so far. The files are enormous — multiple terabytes to be (sort of) exact, a volume equivalent to the RAM of hundreds of laptops. Instead of filing an expense report that could get me sacked, I looked at Wikipedia’s latest top-line figures, released from the database in November.

    The most-edited articles are about editing Wikipedia articles. Confusing, I know, especially when you take a peek at what those housekeeping articles say. Take this test page that, at the time of writing this piece, says:

    And here’s the additional text Yolo my name is jacob.

    Not exactly an indication of online debate.

    So, to find which articles have had the most constantly shifting content, I looked at entries that didn’t relate to Wikipedia administration. Here are the 100 most-revised articles:

    Page- ...................................... Number of Revisions-

    1. George W. Bush ...................................... 45,273

    4. Michael Jackson ...................................... 27,050

    5. Jesus ...................................... 26,580

    10. Britney Spears ...................................... 23,106

    14. The Beatles ...................................... 21,557

    28. Led Zeppelin ...................................... 18,928

    40. Eminem ...................................... 17,602

    45. Elvis Presley ...................................... 17,211

    48. Mariah Carey ...................................... 16,900

    71. Blackout (Britney Spears album) ...................................... 15,751

    72. Madonna (entertainer) ...................................... 15,720

    73. Manchester United FC ...................................... 15,718

    86. Christina Aguilera ...................................... 15,062
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marilynrules62
Ray Of Fright
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Wikipedia says that Madonna's sold 300 million records worldwide, but I think it's more like 260 to 270 million.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blue Tiger
Member Avatar
Desperately Seeking Clarity
[ *  *  *  * ]
Few days ago they told in news that approximately 90% of wikipedia articles about illnesses and dieseases are wrong. They are not totally wrong but include some misinformation. The worst thing is not that some people believe it and use wikiepdia to heal themselves from little troubles but some doctors use it as a source of knowledge. My parents told me one of our first contact doctors does it.
When it's about Moldonna, not only flattering articles are rewritten by her fans but there are also negative ones by haters. For example some info about her samples on 'Bedtime copies' are wrong, such as "Forbidden Love" samples "Down Here on the Ground" performed by Grant Green or Inside of Me samples "Outstanding" performed by The Gap Band. I've listened to it many times and didn't find any similarity. Plus there is a new sentence which wasn't there before. "Survival" – "Hey Love" performed by Stevie Wonder. It also seems to be false.
Edited by Blue Tiger, Jun 2 2014, 12:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

This study was based on mentions of Madonna's name on Wiki.

This seems familiar. I may have posted another story on this over a week ago?

Maybe these Gigwise people are using the "most edited Wiki" list as the basis for this - in which case, the list showed Madonna is not the "most influential" but that her page has been edited more frequently than most other entertainers.

New study names Madonna as most influential woman in history
  • Study used Wikipedia to analyse influence of global figures

    According to a new scientific study, which analysed Wikipedia using a series of algorithms, Madonna is the most influential woman in history - ranking above men such as Jesus, Charles Darwin and Barack Obama.

    The list, published by a group of researchers at several European universities, used the same system Google uses to evaluate top search results, and applied it to Wikipedia to discover the most influential people.

    According to the "2DRank" section of their findings, the most influential woman in the world is Madonna, who is ranked shortly behind Michael Jackson and, worryingly, Adolf Hitler.

    The paper also published a list of influential figures using a slightly different algorithm, and Madonna is the only woman, out of a total of twenty global figures, to make it into either list.

    See the full list of influential figures below

    [visit their site to see the list - Adolph Hitler is number 1, followed by Michael Jackson, Madonna, Jesus, Beethoven, Mozart]

    The study also ran a separate list that comprised only female figures, and Mariah Carey and Britney Spears made it into this one.

    See the list of influential female figures below [visit site to see list]

    Madonna has released thirteen albums to date, the first of which was released over twenty years ago in 1983. She has also appeared in several film roles, written books, and runs a clothing line.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Julia Griggs
Member Avatar
Ultimate Madonna Hater
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^^^^ Another indication we're already living in an Idiocracy: this form of stuffing the ballot box.

Terrible. Depressing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Wikipedia Pages of Star Clients Altered by P.R. Firm
  • By MICHAEL CIEPLYJUNE 22, 2015

    LOS ANGELES — Even by her own account, the supermodel Naomi Campbell’s 1994 album “Babywoman” didn’t amount to much.

    “At least I tried,” was the best Ms. Campbell could say of the R&B recording, which was critically drubbed and sold poorly in much of the world (though Japan loved it), during an interview with Kenya’s Daily Nation in 2001.

    Yet Ms. Campbell’s Wikipedia entry has been brushed up, to eliminate a potentially embarrassing reference to “Babywoman” as a “critical and commercial failure.”

    And that edit helped prompt claims last week that Sunshine Sachs, a powerful public relations firm that represents Ms. Campbell and others, has played loose with Wikipedia’s standards and recently violated the site’s updated terms of use agreement, by employing paid editors who fail to disclose their conflict of interest on the website.

    Based in New York with offices here and in Washington, Sunshine Sachs has specialized in crisis communications and the representation of Hollywood clients who have included Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and its Golden Globe Awards.

    In an email on Friday, Ken Sunshine, a founder of Sunshine Sachs, acknowledged that several staff members had violated the terms of use by failing to disclose their association with the firm. Mr. Sunshine said a key employee in his web operation was not aware of Wikipedia’s new terms. All employees who edit on Wikipedia have now disclosed their affiliation with Sunshine, he added.

    “We think the rules are important, and will make sure we are always in compliance moving forward,” he said.

    While Hollywood public relations firms are always vigilant about the reputation of clients, many large communications companies have become wary of direct intervention on the web. As the Wikimedia Foundation’s new terms of use were being formulated last year, several dozen large publicity firms, including Ogilvy & Mather, Edelman and FleishmanHillard, pledged to observe the foundation’s policies against covert editing.

    Their stance was consistent with a growing wariness among professional communicators of hidden online maneuvers that might ultimately be discovered by investigators. “Most big firms try to stay away from Internet reputation management where employees go in, because it leaves a trail,” said Ross Johnson, a communications consultant based here who has worked with Sitrick and Company and PMK-BNC, both of which have a Hollywood presence.

    Wikipedia, a crowd-sourced, group-edited compilation of information, has formally required such disclosure since June 16, 2014, when its sponsoring Wikimedia Foundation tightened practices. The move followed repeated controversies over self-interested editing on the site, including a 2012 controversy that resulted in Wikipedia’s ban on 250 user accounts associated with Wiki-PR, a consulting firm.

    Even before the terms of use were tightened, the Wikimedia Foundation strongly discouraged paid advocacy editing by public relations firms and others. In October 2013 statement, Sue Gardner, the foundation’s executive director at the time, said paid advocacy “violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people.”

    Since the crackdown, the wikiwars have been relatively quiet. Or they were until last Tuesday, when Wiki Strategies, an independent consultant that advises clients on ways to patrol their Wikipedia presence without violating the rules — and therefore has a competitive interest in spotting violations of the sort Sunshine Sachs acknowledged — posted a report from a paid researcher.

    In it, Jack Craver, a researcher and freelance journalist who was hired to examine the Sunshine Sachs posts, described traced edits in several Wikipedia pages — before and after the new terms of use were put in place — to accounts associated with Sunshine Sachs, which also represented the subjects.

    The celebrities involved included Ms. Campbell, the actress Mia Farrow and the singer Sarah Brightman. The changes were traced to a number of user names. But the most prominent fixes were made by an editor with the user name Alexdltb, whom Mr. Craver determined, using social media tracks and other web sources, to be Alexander De la Torre Bueno, a Sunshine Sachs employee.

    It wasn’t all guesswork. Pete Forsyth, a Wiki Strategies partner, had been tipped by someone — Mr. Forsyth declined to be more specific about the tipster — who sent him a Sunshine Sachs email that in April of this year told recipients: “We’re here to help your clients edit their pages!”

    The email, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times and which Mr. Sunshine acknowledged had been sent by an employee, identified 10 clients who had already been helped and cited Mr. De la Torre Bueno as a key member of the Wikipedia cleanup team. “Sunshine Sachs has a number of experienced editors on staff that have established profiles on Wikipedia,” said the email. “The changes we make to existing pages are rarely challenged.”

    Asked whether paid advocacy editing remains common, Mr. Forsyth said, “I don’t think that’s something that really can be known.” He said that Wikipedia’s insistence on protecting the anonymity of contributors is at odds with its concerns about conflict of interest.

    Samantha Lien, a Wikimedia Foundation spokeswoman, said in an email of the claims of editing by Sunshine Sachs: “Though we’re not familiar with this specific case, we will look into it, as we would with any cases that may present violations to our terms of use.” Ms. Lien said the group had seen no evidence of “consistent, organized, or large-scale abuses” of the disclosure requirement since it went into effect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Realist84
Member Avatar
Desperately Seeking Clarity
[ *  *  *  * ]
I've noticed that over the years since Wikipedia came into place that people basically repeat what they read on celebrities' Wikipedia pages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Madonna Blows Chunks · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Disclaimer: The contents of the posts contained herein are the sole property of their respective users and do not necessarily reflect the forum's views as a whole.
All content Copyright © 2005-2018 The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.