This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Olivia Newton-John article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
Olivia Newton-John is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Request for comment (should "British" or place of birth be in the lead sentence?)
Another editor insists that ONJ is a "British-born Australian".[1] However, this overlooks the fact that she is a dual British Australian citizen, as evidenced by her British award of Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2020 New Year Honours. I believe that she should be described as "British-Australian". Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was Australian. The fact that she was born in the UK and presumably retained dual citizenship is irrelevant. She identified as Australian and I'm guessing would never have described herself as Australian. References would be needed to establish otherwise. Timb66 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "irrelevant" that she had dual citizenship. Articles reflect facts, not just what a person identified as. But I'm not sure that "British-Australian" is appropriate either as that is no more a nationality than the term "Irish-American" usually is. It might be a bit complicated but something along the lines of "was a British-born Australian singer" and then mentioning her dual citizenship in some way seems the most appropriate solution to me. Otherwise I don't see how this issue will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Afterwriting (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire is significant, she was also British, it can't be excluded. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss20:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Are you Australian? I am, eith similar background to ONJ. I have never bothered to relinquish my UK citizenship but that doesn't mean anything. Timb66 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, she was born in the UK. This fact is mentioned in the appropriate place. It would give undue weighting to include this in the lead sentence. Why not also mention she was blond and right-handed? Timb66 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant. Don Bradman was made a knight. And both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard were born in the UK, but are still Australian. You need to provide evidence that being named a dame makes one British. And then justification that this is so important that it belongs in the opening sentence Timb66 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that eligibility for the honour you mentioned simply requires being a citizen of a Commonwealth country. There are dozens of recipients who are Australian by birth, such as Greg Chappell. So this honour does not imply Britishness Timb66 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ETHNICITY only mention birth location in lead if relevant to notability - it isn't in this case. She did nothing notable in the UK - she left when 6 - started her career in Australia. Identifies as Australian. Known as Australian. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, WP:ETHNICITY is very clear. Why are people still editing the lead to insert her place of birth, rather than discussing here? Timb66 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being an official representative of the UK in Eurovision is a significant for being British. Did she ever represent Australia in an international competition? If not, that would be cause for removing Australian. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss19:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in the UK? then use "British-Australian". PS - We're using "US" as her DOD, but not "UK" as her DOB? Why the inconsistency? GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single Eurovision entry for the UK at a time when Australia was excluded is notable enough to justify mentioning in the lead sentence. It gives undue weight. Timb66 (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, born in the UK, represented UK in Eurovision, British citizen, Dame commander by appointment of the Queen, she is more British than Aussie. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now you're getting ridiculous Lilach. I hope that comment was a joke. If not, I'm afraid you've lost objectivity :-) Timb66 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Representation is not relevant here. She was not a sportsperson, she was a pop star. The primary activity of a pop star is entertainment, making records, making films, etc. Timb66 (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dual citizenship can be covered in the infobox - no need to add XYZ born in most cases as it doesn’t really add anything of value I feel, as birthplace is not mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. Now, I don’t know how ONJ felt about her own identity, but referring to her as Australian seems appropriate as she lived there from the age of six. Unless a source can be found where she self identified as British in any way then leave as is. Also, English would be inappropriate considering her heritage. Regards, SinoDevonian (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editors, please do not insert place of birth, it violates WP:ETHNICITY, as discussed above. British heritage is not sufficiently notable to br included in the lead. Timb66 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her own statements should hold the greatest weight. When asked about her citizenship in 2017, being asked specifically whether she was British, Australian or American, she stated without qualification: I am still Australian. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She had the option to say that she was Australian AND British or even American too, since the US was her primary residence for decades. But the only one she mentioned was Australian. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please read WP:ETHNICITY and explain why her place of birth is notable enough to be included in the lead. And see previous comments above. Thanks, Tim Timb66 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Prior to about 1984, British subjects who emigrated to Australia were granted full voting rights. Therefore, they did not need to take out Australian citizenship and most didn't bother. Most still considered themselves Australian. Is there any that ONJ considered didn't? Timb66 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the 2017 interview cited above, the relevant text is this:
JF: Do you still live in California?
ONJ: We live between California and Florida and Australia. We are always moving it seems.
JF: Are you technically a British, American or Australian citizen at this point?
ONJ: I am still Australian.
It seems clear her use of "still" was regarding the fact that she lived in the US for much of her life. I haven't seen any evidence that she ever considered herself British. Timb66 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact she never relinquished her British citizenship makes highly appropriate to include British as her nationality.British-Australian is therefore appropriate. Not to do so and simply put Australian as her citizenship is factually wrong. Btonuk (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many videos of Olivia saying she's English and/or British. There's actually a YouTube video trending right this moment where she corrects the host by telling him she's English, was raised for 10 years in Australia, then went back to England, at the 3:49 mark. The host thought she was actually Australian. The following 2019 quote can be found in tons of news sites of Olivia saying, "As a girl born in Cambridge, I am very proud of my British ancestry and so appreciative to be recognised in this way by the United Kingdom." [2] Most people hope to come to Wikipedia to find information about someone or something that is based on facts, not feelings /emotions. Mindfullyact (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The biography should say she is British-Australian. She held dual citizenship as an adult, and most of her childhood was spent in Australia. Her first musical project was a singing group in Australia when she was 14, and she won a contest with first prize a trip to London. Her musical "origin" is Australia. Certainly she was British, and just as certainly she was Australian. The formulation "British-born" puts her British heritage at too far of a remove, since she returned to the UK at the age of 18, and her first commercial success was in the UK.
I agree, British-Australian encompasses the facts and her pride in her British ancestry. After all she did live part of her childhood, teens and 20's in the UK, plus it's her place of birth. On a 2000's UK show, she and her sister shared things about their Welsh background, their paternal family, how the Newton and John name came about, and so on. Olivia said her singing comes from that background and how she used to hate UK's cloudy climate (in comparison to a sunny climate) but now appreciates many aspects. They shared that their very proper paternal grandmother would often take her sister Rona to church when they were growing up in the UK. A bunch of stuff. Noticed that the one tolerated picture of Olivia in UK was removed from the Wiki page. She has passed now, yet they still disrespect and disregard her pride for her British background. Despite her low-key talk about it, and her affirmations of her love for Australia. Mindfullyact (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about we avoid labelling completely? It rarely helps. Briefly say "Born in Britain. Grew up in Australia, then lived in the USA". HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who comes to Australia has dual citizenship unless they specifically revoke it, which is very rare. Politicians have to do it before standing for parliament (and some forget) but most people never bother. It's just not a thing. Many Australians of that generation were born in the UK and grew up in Australia. Most consider themselves Australian. Timb66 (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her official website: [3] describes her first as being born in Cambridge and then moving to Australia. Doesn't say anything specifically about nationality
I wasn't selective at all in choosing these sources. I just looked at the top google news stories. Others are welcome to add more sources and prove me wrong, but at least my take is the majority of sources appear to simply describe her as Australian. Polyamorph (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Australian" as per Polyamorph's review of RS above. We should follow the sources, not be applying arbitrary categories like "which country did she participate in Eurovision on behalf of." BeReasonabl (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting anything of the sort. Her place of birth is provided in the article, her British nationality is provided in the Article. This is purely about the lead and how she should be described, and for this we must do as the sources. Polyamorph (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna stick with my support of "British-Australian" or "British-born Australian", concerning the lead. Whatever the result of this RFC is? I'll of course accept it. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her name is prefixed with "Dame" in the lead, an honour that can only be conferred on British citizens since 2015, while ONJ would not be accorded the honour until 2019. So if we are to describe her simply as Australian, it would be incongruent to still prepend her name with "Dame". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Australian per above, but I further note in her website bio, she calls herself Australian (by using the diminutive "Aussie" for herself) at least twice, calls Melbourne, Austialia, her "hometown", and discusses overwhelming ties to Australia some 34 times. She mentions England once, and British Empire twice in relation to the Queen of Australia, but never calls herself English or British. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You added a source from some local news agency. We finally got one from a better outlet (Parade)... I'll replace it when something better comes along.
Please remember, Wikipedia is not a news outlet. We do not care about being the first to break news on a celebrity death. We care about accurate info. EvergreenFir(talk)19:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1970s (or '80s), there was a claim that she was gay/homosexual or perhaps bisexual. Was this topic ever addressed by her? Skimming the section on relationships, I saw none, and saw nothing in the article that mentions this at all. Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Misty MH: look at this interview: "Question: I came across a video of you acknowledging lesbian rumors that were circulating about you in the ’80s. I had no idea people ever thought you were a lesbian. Answer: Yeah, I remember that. It was very odd. I couldn’t figure out why, but it didn’t do me any harm, obviously. (Laughs) ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss20:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's far too trivial to include in the article. It's insignificant, had no effect & is the sort of unsubstantiated claim that's said of hundreds of celebs. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently her video "Physical" was huge for many in the gay communities. The interview (above) was published by "Pride Source Media Group, LLC. ... PSMG produces the award-winning biweekly LGBTQ+ print publication..."; and in it the interviewer says that her video "Physical" was "groundbreaking" for the gay community because it had a couple of gay people holding hands in it. And it says the gay community was a huge fan of hers. More below about the details of the video, but first...
Here's the more-complete interview discussion (partly quoted above by another editor) related to the rumors, asked of her in the interview:
"[Interviewer] I came across a video of you acknowledging lesbian rumors that were circulating about you in the ’80s. I had no idea people ever thought you were a lesbian.
[Newton-John] Yeah, I remember that. It was very odd. I couldn’t figure out why, but it didn’t do me any harm, obviously. (Laughs)
[Interviewer] Actually, I think it might’ve benefited you.
[Newton-John] I think it was probably a good rumor! It was a nice rumor, not a mean rumor.
[Interviewer] Do mean rumors about Olivia Newton-John actually exist?
[Newton-John] I’m sure there have been some! I try not to tune in to negativity. I tune that stuff out, so I don’t know."
And a bit more about the video (and there is more at the link):
"[Interviewer] Like many gay men of my generation, my introduction to you was the “Physical” video. I remember being surprised seeing two gay men walking out of the gym together, holding hands. Considering being gay was more taboo during that time, how do you reflect on that groundbreaking moment when it comes to gay inclusivity?
[Newton-John] You know what, I don’t think I even realized it at the time. ..."
I would say that "groundbreaking" would be pretty notable. :)
There is a nice 1980 one in colour that we could crop, she's on the far left and can be cut out. Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh meet Australian entertainers who performed in a Royal Charity Concert at the Sydney Opera House [in 1980]. Performers include (from left): pianist Roger Woodward, comedian Paul Hogan and singer Olivia Newton-John. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chart positions
The constant inclusions of positions on multiple different charts in one particular North American country make for a very frustrating read. It would be better, IMO, with fewer US chart positions, and noting when singles do especially well in Aus, UK or the US (e.g. noting that Xanadu was a UK number one instead of a US Top 10 hit). EuroAgurbash (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Her back pains had initially been misdiagnosed as sciatica." She likely had a metastasis to her low back that caused her to experience sciatica. The diagnosis of sciatica was likely correct, but the cause of that sciatica (the met) was missed. Pgemmell2 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When Olivia Newton-John was 16 she signed with Crest Records, an Australian-victorian based record company. Around this time her father cheated on her mother and the consequences of this relationship left Olivia "uncontrollable" according to her mother in a conversation to the head of Crest Records, Marcus Herman. Olivia then met [Turpie] and ran away with him, breaking off the contract with Crest illegally. Crest decided not to pursue this with their solicitor as she and her mother were "so lovely". Purple goddess (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
the info box picture has been changed over and over again. normally when a old school celebrity dies, they get changed to a black-and-white picture depicting the height of their popularity/career. so far this year, multiple celebrities have gotten this, regardless of the way they die. examples this year include Meat Loaf, Richard Leakey, Michel Bouquet, and Ronnie Spector. in my opinion the black-and-white photo should stay in her infobox. 4me689 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a photo from her prime years is better. There is one from 1980 in Colour. Olivia Newton-John at Royal Charity Concert at the Sydney Opera House [in 1980]. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss07:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full support of the original black and white picture that was included. None of these colored images are high quality. The one currently in the infobox makes her face barely visible, I do not see how this is a good choice or why it should remain in the infobox. { [ ( jjj1238 ) ] }15:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The black and white picture that 4me689 was edit warring over is a terrible image. If you really want a black and white image, this one would be better [17].Polyamorph (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2012 pic of her at the A Few Best Men movie premiere; the black-and-white photos used previously are awful in my opinion, and actually look antiquated. I can't find any guideline that says black-and-white photos should be used for persons recently deceased. Our article for Anne Heche, who just died, uses a color photo, as do those for Paul Sorvino, Lamont Dozier, Darryl Hunt, and even the one for Vin Scully, who was 94 years old. Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should consider her career peak when talking about images. Most researchers would agree that the peak of her career would be in the mid 70s, therefore an image from around or closer to that time would be most appropriate. I still side with 1978. It would be like using an image of Bette Davis in 1989 as opposed to her career peak in the 30s-40s. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that a picture from the peak of her career would be preferable, but I don't think options 1 through 4 are great for this. The black-and-white Schiphol photographs are beautiful, but look ridiculously antiquated for a '70s/'80s pop figure. Option 2 feels more in-line with my imagination of her, but the lighting is too harsh. It's an odd taste situation, but I have to go with the more modern picture for now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox picture choices
Cast your !vote
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images that have been discussed. Would a !vote solve this impasse? Just sign under your choice(s).Polyamorph (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's going on. I tried to revert but the images are protected. Needs an admin on commons to fix I think. Anyone know someone? I agree it looks terrible Polyamorph (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ive reverted both back to the originals. edits like that should never be done to the file, they should be made as a derivative work and uploaded as a separate image. The one edit affected over 20 different language versions of Wikipedia all around the world. - X201 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above, I've made a request at the commons help desk. I've no idea why anyone would think that is an improvement, it's awful. Polyamorph (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The background is awful anyway because of the surrounding faces. I asked for a blur as I assumed that was all it needed, but it looks like the image needs to have the background faces photoshopped out as I don't see any other way to correct the image. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 18:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the editor who carried out your request messed up and replaced the current version entirely, instead of uploading a derivative work. The background in image 4 is not so bad cf. Image 3. Polyamorph (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see there is much discussion on the image. The last thing that is needed is unilateral action by a single user. If you have an alternative image then suggest it below - not here in the !voting section. Polyamorph (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.