Talk:Tina Turner/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Turner

Clouds, since you don't want anything about this topic on your talk pg... I can list reasons, probably more than six why you are incorrect. One, TT wrote a book. The citation you are disputing is about that, she is the author of the post. Two, the two citations are not even the same - not at all. Three, one is about the individual being her personal assistant. Four, the other is about the same person having another job previously. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Even if the source is 100% reliable, not everything written about her needs to be included. Legal issues were brought up but their conclusion was not given, nor do they appear to have had an impact on her career. Listing them in a separate section also gives them undue attention, when illegal activity is not something for which she is particualrly known. Mention of the first boyfriend again seems like overkill − understandable if the event inspired a song or something, but otherwise it's too much information in my opinion. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits will continue to be reverted. You are wrong. You just took 3300 plus words off. Your opinion is not right. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we appear to be at an impasse. You say my opinion is not right, but you haven't given a sensible reason as to why. The "Legal issues" section is definitely problematic, please do not restore it until other people have offered their opinion. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC) (ps. 3300 is the number of characters, not words!)

I am reverting it. You didn't address anything said. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is important to proceed with caution when describing a person's legal affairs. I would recommend asking someone else's opinion before reverting. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not an attorney. I have no difficulty reversing your edits and will as appropriate. If you want to adjust paragraphs or sentences that is one thing. Wholesale removing something that has to do with law is out of bounds and will be changed. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you understanding? For instance if you want to change wording about cases that Turner went through that is allowable. Deleting everything you did is certainly not. Whether it's talked about in lyrics is inconsequential. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Legal issues is not tabloid fodder. There is a legal sections in articles for many people. What is the problem? The information was cited. The section should be restored.Twixister (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The use of "legal sections" isn't good practice at all. If these legal problems are important enough to be mentioned, surely they can be incorporated into the main body of text. An encyclopedic entry shouldn't be a catch-all for every incident in the subject's life. Besides that, none of these three paragraphs even mentioned the outcome of the legal action − to leave it hanging like that does a disservice to the reader, and more importantly, to the subject. I think this issue needs arbitrating by administrators. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Every incident in her life is not mentioned. Those are legal charges which are notable to mention. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, if someone wants to research the cases further they can add the outcomes. By your logic, the entire personal life section should be incorporated into the sections about her career. That would make those sections very congested. It's easier to navigate with separate sections. Legal issues like her relationships, health, and religion is a subsection of her personal life.Twixister (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have raised my concerns with this article at the relevant noticeboard. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Daily Mail citation per WP:DAILYMAIL. It's not trustworthy (obviously, to those who know the journal). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Myrtle, for the 3rd time. Tina Turner is the author of that post; it's her book too. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter - the Mail is notorious for inventing quotes. And don't call me Shirley (or Myrtle). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail absolutely cannot be trusted with even book reprints. Get the original book, cite the original book - not the DM alleged-reprint. I've seen the DM mangle supposed "book excerpts" extensively. You cannot trust the DM. That's why it's deprecated. - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail citation was not originally a source and shouldn't have been added. The information is in Tina's autobiography I, Tina which is already a source. The legal issues section has been there for a while and hasn't been a problem until Howdoesitgo1 (talk) added the Daily Mail citation.Twixister (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So, sources aside, I still don't think the legal issues are particularly WP:DUE; this similarly goes for if we cite to her book. I am quite sure that at some point in the book, she mentions eating something. That doesn't mean it belongs in our Wikipedia article. If there's a consensus against me, so be it! But to this point I see only one editor championing these particular edits. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong, not sure about your happiness during correction. Counting may not be your thing. I am not the only person questioning the edits on here or on the opposite side you seem to be on. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am wrong a lot! But to be frank, you're not terribly convincing that I am wrong in this particular instance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been no polling, there's no "warring". It was somewhat discussed to incorporate info into the article. There is heavy-handedness going on and that won't be acceptable. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What you see as "heavy-handedness" I see as the normal discussion mode of Wikipedia. To each his or her own! Dumuzid (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be part of the problem. It's not hard to understand incorporating information into an article would be a starting point. It was brought up. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I am part of the "problem," and proud to be so. The fact is the Wikipedia is collaborative, and no matter how strongly you believe in your position, you don't get to enforce it by ipse dixit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Enforce what? Falling down a cliff in support of your weird ideals? Encyclopedias have been around a long time and this one will disappear if stuff like this happens. You pretend conversations never happen. There is a reason for talk pages. Why don't you research about how to remove information and corrupt history? I never said every "minor" thing has to be talked about. I do say you are in error. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who has edited this article for the last 3 weeks, STOP now. Everyone stop and let the article sit for a month. Come back with some sense. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

How about I continue to edit as I see fit within the rules and norms of Wikipedia, and you do the same? That seems like a decent agreement to me. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait... What? You mean we don't have to automatically follow every order that an anonymous stranger on the Internet barks at us? Looks like I have been doing it wrong all these years... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Preceded by Gladys Knight, Succeeded by Sheryl Crow

Succeeded in what way? Template:Succession box is normally reserved for office holders. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Singer of James Bond title song, apparently... (!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you got it. [1]

I am going to remove it as useless trivia. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's ridiculous what people (editors) are saying on here. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection isn't even enough. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Howdoesitgo1: The page is not currently protected. If you think it needs to be, place a request at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Rudolf, would you glance at the last week or so on here. It's devolved into silliness. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you complaining or taking credit? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Legs

"Long legs", "trademark legs".... etc. Really? In the opening paragraph??!! Come on.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

OK - we have a citation for "world-famous legs". I still don't think they need to be mentioned in the lead though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100%. No doubt added in good faith, but I believe the article is better without this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Years active: Beyond project

She sang for two Beyond albums. So, I suggest to give 1957–2020 as years active. I have not found a proper reference in English, but in German: https://www.universal-music.de/beyond/biografie. It says there that she sings Amazing Grace, Our Father (German: Vaterunser), and Motherless Child on Love Within; however, she speaks Our Father.

• 2011: Children: Sarvesham Svastir Bhavatu on YouTube, Jai Da Da on YouTube
• 2014: Love Within: Love Within on YouTube (Amazing Grace starts at 7:49), Mother Within on YouTube (Motherless Child starts at 1:26)

--FoolInLove (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Those seem like personal side projects due to her religion. On Oprah in 2013, she said she was retired. In the last decade she has released books, musicals and those Beyond songs, but she still says she is retired. Every interview after her 50th anniversary tour emphasis that she has been retired since 2009.--Twixister (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it then make sense to delete 2020? First of all, she considers herself to be retired. Secondly, the recording does not suggest that Kygo used newly recorded vocals. The journalists likely misinterpreted Kygo's Instagram post, because it shows a photo of him and Tina, which is in fact a collage, and because he wrote of "the opportunity to work with such a legendary artist", which is probably a metonymy for working with her vocals. Is todayfm.com a proper reference? It says there, "Tina Turner retired years ago and shuns the spotlight, but it's believed Kygo has remixed this song much like his huge hit Higher Love with Whitney Houston last year – without new vocals." --FoolInLove (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I deleted 2020. There are doubts that he used newly recorded vocals. Therefore, it is the best to simply mention that he released a remix. --FoolInLove (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussing again for Tina's lede to be "American-Swiss/Swiss-American"?

Following a somewhat similar situation with actress Liu Yifei, who because of Chinese citizenship laws, only had American citizenship because they don't recognize dual citizenship/nationality, there was a consensus to describe her as being "Chinese-American", because although she now only has American citizenship, she was born and most active in China. So, I don't see why Turner can't be described as being "American-Swiss". Following the Context section: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Its already been established that she was born and raised in America, had American citizenship for around 70+ years of her life, and was most famous there. So I don't see why she can't have "American-Swiss" or "Swiss-American" as her lede with a note explaining that she had given up her American citizenship in 2013. Describing her as "American-born" seems to deny the fact that she was most notable as an American singer and had American citizenship for the majority of her life. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

She is not "American-Swiss" nor "Swiss-American", she does not hold dual citizenship, she is Swiss. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Tbhotch - Well, if you read my post, actress Liu Yifei isn't Chinese, she only holds American citizenship but gets described as being "Chinese-American". And actor Max von Sydow only gets described as being "Swedish" in the lede even though he only had French citizenship from 2002 till the day he died. I also pointed out that Wiki guidelines states that "previous nationalities or place of birth shouldn't be mentioned unless they're relevant to the subjects notability", and she was most famous as an American prior. But I see that in this case, the consensus seems to be "American-born Swiss", which I still find odd and wanted to discuss again. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) This has been discussed before, many times, and the least bad description in the circumstances seems to be "American-born Swiss". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - Pardon for tagging you, but looking at the past discussions I don't understand why "American-born Swiss" was decided as the consensus, especially the one that's "least bad". I thought Wiki guidelines explicitly state that past nationalities should be mentioned if they are notable to the subject's notability so "American-Swiss" would be the most logical. As I mentioned, as an example, that's the reason why Liu Yifei was described as being "Chinese-American" and not "Chinese-born American" even though she doesn't have Chinese citizenship, only American because of Chinese nationality laws. And the consensus for Max von Sydow was that he should be described as being "Swedish-French", because although he only held French citizenship from 2002 till the day he died, he was born and raised in Sweden and held only Swedish citizenship before giving that up to become French. There are countless other Wikipedia pages which similar situations like those two aforementioned people. So I'm still kind of confused and wanted to discuss again, EDIT: Although I'm aware that the difference between the two aforementioned people and Tina Turner is that they didn't renounce their previous citizenship, but lost them either due to the countries laws or in the process of applying for a new one, I still think that her being American is just too important to her notability to only state that she's "American-born". Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

For me, I don't think "American" is appropriate because she did not lose her citizenship either by operation of law or in order to take on a new one; rather, she renounced it pointedly. That is the distinction for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess the big difference I'm still overlooking is that she renounced her U.S citizenship, as opposed to the other two examples, who lost their previous citizenship either because they relinquished it or could not have dual citizenship because of a countries laws. But I still feel that since she was most famous for being an American singer, was American for over 70 years and that is also where she was born and raised in, that she should have "American" in her lede, not "American-born". Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two relevant factors here. One, she was born in the US, and was American when she became and remained a notable person through her activities. To the world at large, and setting aside the legal position (which is only really of interest to lawyers), she is essentially American. Two, she now (in the later part of her life, and unconnected to anything that made her a notable person) has Swiss nationality. She should not be described as "American-Swiss", which is a term which would suggest that she is a member of a wider "American-Swiss" group of people (such as, say, "Chinese-American"). That is why the best short summary we can have is "American-born Swiss". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've slightly amended the lead for clarity to ".... is an American-born singer, songwriter, and actress, who changed her citizenship to Swiss in 2013", which explains the situation. SilkTork (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This strikes me as a good way to convey the information, thank you. My only qualm is about whether we need to say she renounced U.S. citizenship, but that doesn't need to be in the lead. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I think the last sentence of her renouncing her citizenship should be removed from the lede if it's already mentioned that she changed her citizenship in 2013 at the beginning.--Twixister (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@SilkTork: - Thank you. The change in wording definitely clarifies her situation. I don't know why I didn't think about asking about that haha. Also, I agree with the users above. Because the lede sentence mentions her change in citizenship in 2013, then the last sentence mentioning that she renounced her citizenship seems unneeded. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinion on the nationality issue

Just leave it as American and add an invisible note that she became notable while she was American, like Helen Mirren. --188.143.109.174 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP. I understand the suggestion, but for me, this is a non-starter since the subject pointedly renounced her American citizenship. I'd be more amenable if she had either retained it or it had ceased due to operation of law, but these are not the facts. I think we need to respect Ms. Turner's actions on the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

BBC Radio 5 Live's producer today said she is "half-Swiss". 2.28.151.243 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a garbled effort to explain her Swiss citizenship. In and of itself, I don't see it as reason to change anything on this page. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the wording seems odd. Technically, Turner is not "half-Swiss", either ethnically or citizenship wise. She only holds Swiss citizenship after relinquishing her American passport. Per the most recent discussion, it seems like several users agreed with having her lede say "American-born" and then her citizenship situation is explained in the last paragraph of her lede section. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Like many Americans themselves, she became a citizen of her adoptive country by naturalization. Their birth countries may wish to claim them, and they may be from there but that's about it. Tina Turner is a naturalized Swiss.

She’s not Swiss

Just because someone renounced their citizenship doesn’t mean that’s what they ethnically are. She is a Swiss citizen but she is American. Sense when we’re we confusing nationality with ethnicity. Article needs to be edited to be made clear the difference. 2601:40B:8400:AD10:B9A6:3828:509B:A906 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no swiss ethnicity. Switzerland has a old tradition to be a „nation of choice“ or Willensnation and was never based on language or ethinicity. Therefore, if you have a swiss passport you are considered as swiss. You could still have other nationalities tho. Bavisko (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

To be consistent with countless other Wikipedia articles, including this one, it should be written, "Tina Turner is an American-born Swiss singer, songwriter and actress". If we look at the Wikipedia entry on Americans, it clearly states that Americans are "the citizens and nationals of the United States of America", which Tina Turner is no longer. And consistent with this, the entry for Swiss people states that the Swiss are "the citizens of Switzerland or people of Swiss ancestry." The Wikipedia entry has therefore been corrected to make clear that she is American-born Swiss. 05:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC).

Which "Exit"?

In the Health section it says Turner "..signed up to be a member of Exit..." with "Exit" linked to Euthanasia in Switzerland. It seems like it could be a more specific link, but it's not clear whether this should refer to Final Exit Network or Exit International. Theodore Kloba (☎) 13:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Exit International, according to the BBC. --Jayron32 13:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the link with the source. --Jayron32 13:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tina Turner in 2022.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

death?

just got a sky news notification saying she died 92.40.192.118 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@92.40.192.118 it's true unfortunately - L'Maynerque - ("May you [insert query here]?") - 18:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

She dead now 80.62.116.62 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done – Rest in peace. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Change is to was 5.173.204.211 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done – Rest in peace. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 (2)

Tina Turner passed away today May 24 , 2023 12.157.72.145 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, May 23 is correct, see https://apnews.com/article/tina-turner-dead-a04311130e67459cbade34565eb80662. --Voyager (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute – See relevant discussion below. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Tina or Turner

To me it's confusing that she's referred to "Turner" even in sections about her relationship with Ike Turner. Is there any style guide prohibiting us from using her first name to clarify which Turner "Turner" refers to? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 11:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Replacing a secondary source

The source currently numbered as 22, cited simply as "African American Lives on YouTube" is a YouTube clip of the documentary. Acceptable editorial practice would be to cite the actual episode of the documentary itself, not a clip uploaded to a sketchy YouTube channel with a racially inflammatory title and description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4301:5fd0:34fe:88e0:d03d:d21c (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting the + of missing info

This page makes no mention of Tina Turner’s collaboration with Jimmy Barnes. Nor does it mention her NRL (Rugby) associations.

also please add these link/s to ref section.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102387886 49.183.155.47 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 (3)

I suggest to change "Also in May 1984, Capitol issued the album's second single, "What's Love Got to Do with It"; the song had previously been recorded by the pop group Bucks Fizz." to "Also in May 1984, Capitol issued the album's second single, "What's Love Got to Do with It"; the song had previously been recorded by the pop group Bucks Fizz (but not released until 2000)." for clarification. Joz (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Naturalized Swiss"

Should Swiss nationality law be pipe-linked somewhere in this article? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

not really, per MOS:OVERLINK --FMSky (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Date of death

According to the Chicago Tribune, she died on Tuesday, which would make it the 23rd of May, not the 24th.

The Tribune reported the death on the 24th. Beats435 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Reuters said her date of death was may 24th. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that. Perhaps it's a time zone issue? Which is strange, because Tuesday still means Tuesday. Beats435 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Part of me wants to believe it wouldn’t of taken a whole day to report her death, but I have no idea. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I remmener a similar discussion with Stephen Hawking where the DOD was in the time zone it occurred. For example, if she died in Tokyo, we would add Tokyo's time zone as DOD. – Callmemirela 🍁 19:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the date be kept at May 24th, or should it be changed to May 23rd? 2601:18C:8B82:A9A0:65DE:1DD4:D700:DA98 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe we should use UTC for consistency. - L'Maynerque - ("May you [insert query here]?") - 21:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press is also saying that she died on Tuesday. 2601:18C:8B82:A9A0:65DE:1DD4:D700:DA98 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it was just an error on the AP's part. According to Sky News, her spokesperson sent out a statement to the press that said "Tina Turner, the 'Queen of Rock 'n' Roll' died peacefully today at the age of 83 after a long illness". On her Facebook page, the statement announcing her death went out at 22:45 local time on Wednesday evening for Switzerland. The Tribune's article looks to be the AP's, so it was just this one article saying she died Tuesday. Every other article I've checked says Wednesday. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. Keeps it simple.= ~RAYN7105 Rain7105 (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Birth name

Perhaps a mention that some sources (including Ike Turner) indicate she was born Martha Nell Bullock not Anna Mae Bullock.

https://www.tina-turner.nl/1939-1964.php

https://www.nohipstersallowed.com/music/tina-turner-turns-80/

166.199.114.64 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Tina Turner: My Love Story (Official Autobiography) here makes no mention of "Martha Nell", but has "Anna Mae" throughout. So not sure that's true. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Australian legacy

I don't know if this would be WP:Trivia but I am surprised there's not more mentioned in the article about Turner's influence in Australia.

I know there are brief mentions of her Aussie manager, her first solo concert tour and her role in Mad Max, but I feel her association with Australia is understated and should be more detailed. Her death was extensively reported in the Australian media yesterday, more than your average "a well known American performer has died. In other news.." kind of thing. There were lengthy obituaries on news & current affairs programs as well as detailed analysis of Turner's impact in Australia and a tribute before last night's NRL match, which wasn't surprising given that it was her involvement in the famous Australian rugby league advertising campaign of the late 80's/early 90's that is credited with helping turn the fortunes around for an entire national sporting code.

And then there's "The Nutbush". Seriously, what Australian kid hasn't done that dance at a school disco? There's not an Australian adult alive who hasn't done "The Nutbush" at a wedding. There was even an episode of The Voice Australia where the Aussie judges taught Rita Ora how to do "The Nutbush".

I'm Australian so I am obviously affected by bias, but does anyone think these Australian connections should be explored more within the article, particularly the rugby league campaign? 2001:8003:6C01:3100:9D6D:7747:9B86:5F49 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree!! She is a cultural icon in Australia, particularly to fans of Rugby League. Ian Page (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"American singer"

IMO, the first sentence should describe her as "an American singer", not "an American-born Swiss singer". From MOS:NATIONALITY, "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable." Turner renounced her American citizenship after retiring, and for the entirety of her career and period of notability was an American citizen. Her only material released as a Swiss national were reissues and remixes. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and I believe a consensus has been reached. But you still might want to add your voice to the "Lead section" section above. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Double link

Ike Turner is, for whatever reason, linked twice in the lead. Only one link is necessary 79.66.89.36 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I see one to the musical duo Ike & Tina Turner and one to Ike Turner (the individual). They are separate Wikipedia entries, and I feel like both might be helpful to the reader. Am I missing another one? Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Turns out that I was indeed missing one. It has been addressed by another editor. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright of the name Tina Turner

It appears to me that this sentence should not contain the word "not": "Turner added his last name and trademarked the name as a form of protection, so that if Bullock left him, like his previous singers had, he could not replace her with another "Tina Turner".

The object of copyrighting the name Tina Turner was that Ike COULD replace her with another Tina Turner, if he chose to, because he owned the name. 2603:8090:C00:4DB2:440D:5C0A:B1D3:4D0A (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you are right. What does page 74-75 of Cawthorne & Turner (1999) actually say? It's not visible (for me) in the limited online view. But I see that the Ike Turner article, using the same ref, says: "He had the name "Tina Turner" trademarked, so that in case she left, another singer could perform under the same name". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The "not" was added yesterday by Melray082008, and the sentence was previously stable at the reverse meaning. I have undone the edit, as I agree that the change doesn't seem to make sense, but anyone with access to the source may wish to check and confirm. U-Mos (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: this could not happen in the UK, e.g. copyrightservice.co.uk says this: "Copyright does not protect individual names, titles or phrases. Such items may easily be duplicated by coincidence, and are therefore not considered unique or substantial enough to be awarded copyright protection in their own right." 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't confuse copyright and trademark, different things. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Ike & Tina Turner, Bestanddeelnr 924-2170.jpg

I think this is the best photograph we have of them together, at least in image quality, and as such, I've added it in. Minor damage, but I can always fix that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 07:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

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.

---

I suggest the lead section be changed to:

Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock; November 26, 1939 – May 24, 2023) was an American-born and naturalized Swiss singer, songwriter, dancer, actress, and author...

to:

Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock; November 26, 1939 – May 24, 2023) was a singer, songwriter, dancer, actress, and author...

By removing the nationality. What do you think?

EDIT: An example was already given at Anya Taylor-Joy.

RMXY (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support , text about her nationality in the first sentence of the lead is distracting. I think is better to move all mentions about it to the existing explanatory note, as in the example provided. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Support, a distraction and not an important feature of her success for most people. But see separate question about "Naturalized Swiss" below. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Support, per above. Loytra (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Support as the flag-waving is not of primary significance. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Option 3: "Was an American-born singer". --FMSky (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Support As it is, it's overloading the first sentence with a rather minor part of her biography and notability - that at the age of 74, after all her albums and tours, she stopped being an American. Her 30-year residence in, and 10-year citizenship of, Switzerland can be listed later in the lead. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Support The peculiarities of where someone lives and/or was born and/or what their parentage is, is far less important than many people want it to be. --Jayron32 17:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Support Putting place of birth and/or nationality in the lead sentence of any bio is a habit we've got into, but it can cause problems, and offers little valid information. The lead sentence should be for what a person is notable for. Turner is not notable for being Swiss or for being born in America, she is notable for her voice and her attitude. SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
9. Support Mentioning nationality in the first sentence is arguably important when the person is relatively unknown outside of a particular country or two. Which is not the case in this case. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
10. Support, per the various points above. Carlstak (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
11. Support, I'm several weeks late but it doesn't look like this was closed? I think the best compromise is to omit nationality, especially given the headache it's caused over the years. But I also wouldn't be against simply stating birth like Einstein's page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I was part of Anya Taylor-Joy's nationality discussion, and I don't believe the situations are comparable. Taylor-Joy is either a tri-citizen or dual-citizen with a third permanent residence authorization (depending on the source), and she has been variously described as all three nationalities by reliable sources, so mentioning all three in the lede was clunky. Turner's nationality is not complicated, she was American-born and became a Swiss citizen later in life, this is the case for many notable people on Wikipedia and the only reason there is any issue here is because we are not used to Americans renouncing their citizenship to naturalize elsewhere, I see no reason why her nationality should not be mentioned, as it would certainly be mentioned if she remained an American citizen and never naturalized in Switzerland. For me, American-born Swiss is adequate and describes Turner's situation fine. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• As there seems to be strong support for removing Turner's nationality from the lead sentence I've been WP:BOLD and done so, instead mentioning her place of birth in the second para and Swiss citizenship in the third. Please consider this an interim measure, however, as I don't intend it to end discussion of other options. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• There seems to be wide support for the proposal by RapMonstaXY, that is, not mentioning nationality at all ("a singer, songwriter, dancer, actress, and author"). Currently (I haven't checked who implemented it and when exactly), only "naturalized Swiss" was removed, so we're left with "was an American-born singer". I think that not mentioning Switzerland in the lead section (only in a footnote) looks strange when including "American-born", as she lived for nearly 30 years (since 1994) in Switzerland, and became a citizen in 2013, so that's a large part of her life. Either mention both nationalities in the lead section, or remove them altogether, as per RapMonstaXY's proposal. Though I would find it somewhat helpful to mention the countries to which she had strong connections, and these are the USA and Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

First line of article

"... was a singer.[period]" - looks tacky, almost derogatory. Worst option of all, needs to be fixed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree.. ---FMSky (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Turner was ...

... an American-Swiss singer, etc. Her move to Switzerland and residence there for such a long time were a major and courageous life choice of hers and a vital part of her biography. I am horrified by many of the comments in the discussion above about this, childishly begrudging both Ms. Turner and Switzerland this fact and displaying an attitude of fanatic Americanism which all of us Americans can be ashamed of. Sort of like a number of objectionable tourists from the USA who consider Europe to be some kind of overseas Disneyland. Let's all face what Turner did squarely and calmly, take a deep breath, wipe ones eyes and brows, forget about putting Switzerland down, handle it and grow up!--SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus at #Lead section was to remove mention of nationality. If you want to challenge the closure of that RfC, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is a new discussion as per WP:CCC Our only objective here is to improve articles reliably. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant, it's the current consensus. This discussion is yet to result in a consensus. To invite more opinions, you could begin a new WP:RfC and make your case according to RfC guidelines. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not necessary. Consensus can be reached by discussion, not (only) by voting. Your entries here have all been irrelevant so far. They are not about my point, not about improving the article and not about new consensus. State your case in substance, please! Why do you wish to exclude Turner's national background from the lead? We all know about the old RfC. It's not the point here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggested a new RfC not for voting, but to gather more perspectives for a broader consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not about that. It's about article content now. You did the revert here. Why do you wish to exclude Turner's national background from the lead? Please comment in substance or not at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Current consensus established to exclude nationality all together from first sentence. You can not add it back in there without a new consensus being established first. The RfC only made consensus on first sentence, not entire lead. There was still a note explaining the citizenship changes that was leftover from when it still said American born/naturalized swiss. It didn't make sense having it as a note without the nationalities being mentioned anymore, so I moved the text from the note to the end of the first paragraph. Considered putting it in last paragraph where a comment said it was already but actually wasn't anymore. I didn't feel it fit there anyways or at beginning of second paragraph, so I put at end of first paragraph but location can be discussed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I can live with that. Good to see some constructive action to make the lead of this article less embarrassing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead Format

Exact details aside, can we please discuss whether the basic form of the lead should take its current form, or the form I've tried to edit it to. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Its very important to have the lead focus on her most notable stuff, singing, and not give too much prominence to irrelevant acting roles and her autobiography --FMSky (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Turner's acting and autobiography occupy two sentences of my version of the lead. The entire second paragraph and much of the third and fourth are about her singing career. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

this is basically the whole part in your version about her music career, definitely not enough imo:

Turner began her career with Ike Turner's Kings of Rhythm in 1957. She adopted the name 'Tina Turner' in 1960, and married Ike in 1962. Together they became "one of the most formidable live acts in history", having several hits together before disbanding in 1976 and divorcing in 1978. Turner's 1984 album Private Dancer launched "one of the greatest comebacks in music history"; it contained the hit song "What's Love Got to Do with It", which won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and became her first and only number-one song on the Billboard Hot 100. She had several more hit singles in the 1980s and 1990s, and in 1988 her Break Every Rule World Tour broke the Guinness World Record for the largest paying audience (180,000) for a solo performer.

--FMSky (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead as I edited it is heavily focussed on Turner's music career. Here's all the sentences which mention it:

Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock; November 26, 1939 – May 24, 2023) was an American-born singer. Known as the "Queen of Rock 'n' Roll", she rose to prominence as the lead singer of the Ike & Tina Turner Revue before launching a successful career as a solo performer.

Born in Brownsville, Tennessee, Turner began her career with Ike Turner's Kings of Rhythm in 1957. She adopted the name 'Tina Turner' in 1960, and married Ike in 1962. Together they became "one of the most formidable live acts in history", having several hits together before disbanding in 1976 and divorcing in 1978. Turner's 1984 album Private Dancer launched "one of the greatest comebacks in music history"; it contained the hit song "What's Love Got to Do with It", which won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and became her first and only number-one song on the Billboard Hot 100. She had several more hit singles in the 1980s and 1990s, and in 1988 her Break Every Rule World Tour broke the Guinness World Record for the largest paying audience (180,000) for a solo performer.

[...] Turner retired in 2009 after completing her Tina!: 50th Anniversary Tour, which is the 15th-highest-grossing tour of the 2000s. In 2018 she became the subject of a jukebox musical, Tina.

Turner has received several awards and honours, including 12 Grammy Awards, stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the St. Louis Walk of Fame, two inductions into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a Kennedy Center Honor,s and a Women of the Year award. She was the first black artist and first woman to be on the cover of Rolling Stone, and that magazine also ranked her among the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. Having sold over 100 million records worldwide, Turner is one of the best-selling recording artists of all time.

• The lead sentence establishes that Turner was best-known as a singer.
• paragraph two summarises her music career.
• paragraph three mentions her record-breaking tour and jukebox musical, alongside some other achievements.
• paragraph four lists her awards and honours, which are mainly musical in nature and emphasise her importance.

A.D.Hope (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the current lead goes into far more detail than it needs to, paricularly in listing several song titles in each paragraph when a shorter summary would be perfectly fine. I do understand the desire to fit in as much information as possible, but leads need to be concise and accessible so some things can be left to the body. Even after my edit I'm not sure if the lead complies exactly with MOS:LEADLENGTH, but any extra length is much more jusifiable as the lead covers Turner's major milestones with minimal padding. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

why not use your version but remove the section:

Turner also acted in the films Tommy (1975) and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985). She published her biography, I, Tina in 1986, and in 1993 this was adapted into the biographical film What's Love Got to Do with It. Turner retired in 2009 after completing her Tina!: 50th Anniversary Tour, which is the 15th-highest-grossing tour of the 2000s. In 2018 she became the subject of a jukebox musical, Tina. Turner became a Swiss citizen in 2013, relinquishing her US citizenship in the same year.

--FMSky (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to do so, as although Turner was incredibly famous as a musician her acting and autobiography are also notable. The sentence about her Swiss nationality is also necessary to avoid a clunky lead sentence.

If you have some attachment to the current lead I do understand, but I'm really not trying to shift the focus away from Tina Turner's music career, honest. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

what about this version? that imo works, and the part about her citizenship can stay in the note --FMSky (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking my edits constructively. I really do appreciate that and I hope they're an improvement. Personally I do think there's room to mention her most important non-musical achievements, maybe we should wait and see what other editors think? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

yes but we should probably keep the original until then -- FMSky (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem, that's the risk of being BOLD! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the current lead is very weird. She was an American for most her life and all her professional life and is by no one known as a "Swiss singer". IMO, it should say "was an American singer". An alternative would be "American-Swiss singer".--Marginataen (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"American-born singer" is fine, simply "American singer" would imply she retained her citizenship. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Neveselbert, I'm two weeks late to this, but I've noticed the lead sections says American-born Swiss singer again. I'm wondering what the status on the discussion is? It looks like quite a few users agree with removing nationality per discussion above, removing some potential squabbling?

Though users like @FMSky have suggested simply putting "American-born" but keeping the note on her citizenship situation. While she held sole Swiss citizenship from 2013 until her death, none of her notable activities were as a 'Swiss singer'. I'm fine with either omitting mention of her nationality or simply stating her American-birth. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clear Looking Glass, you can request closure of the discussion at WP:RFCL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I've added it now (hopefully I formatted it right). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here - I know the discussion seems to have passed, but the nationality issue does actually feel relevant here. Turner was part of a legacy of Black American women performers, artists, and writers who moved to Europe or renounced their American citizenship after finding European audiences to be more receptive and/or European racial politics to be less oppressive than their American counterparts. Josephine Baker and Nina Simone immediately come to mind as precedents, but I do think it's a pretty important piece of context when being introduced to Turner. Obviously respect the consensus process, but felt this was relevant. 19h00s (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@19h00s - I understand what you're saying, and ideally, I think "American" or simply "American-born" would be most appropriate. She was born and raised in the United States and gained notability as an American. Aside from acquiring citizenship a decade before her passing, she isn't of Swiss heritage, birth, upbringing and so on. Nor did she first rise prominence in that country.

This discussion has been going back and fourth since she renounced her American citizenship. For the longest time, "American-born Swiss" was what her page stated. The opening sentence nationality has caused many debates in pages all over Wikipedia and perhaps omitting her nationality in the lede is the best compromise. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

International

How is it controversial to achieve peace and calm by adding the perfectly correct word "international" to the first line of this article instead of her citizenship info, more or less correctly formatted, and against consensus, which people keep adding over and over and over again anyway? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

cause its confusing and not entirely clear what it means --FMSky (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think the word is confusing to most readers of English. Most of us know what it means. Perhaps you are joking? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

in the context of a person its confusing. either state her nationality or dont but dont use an ambiguous term that could mean anything --FMSky (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have never seen Tina described in reliable sources as "international". Before she died, this biography spent the most time displaying "American-born Swiss" despite the occasional erasure by drive-by editors who don't know Wikipedia's ways. That's what I had in mind when I performed a revert today. But now I see that a discussion was held earlier on this page, seen at Talk:Tina_Turner#Lead_section, which determined to avoid listing nationality. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Beats me how an international star/singer/performer/actor/artist can be confusing. I've see the phrasing thousands of times and never got confused. Have met and dealt with hundreds of international personalities.

The first line of the article looks weird, as if something's missing. I've tried in earnest to remedy that by using an adjective that I thought was relevant to a women who performed and succeeded all over the world, an adjective she herself would have loved. It was there for 4 days before it got drive-by'd. So, I give up. Met Ms Turner once and admired her greatly. For some obscure reason, English Wikipedia wants her article to begin with weird wording. OK then. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Image

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 infobox image for Tina Turner just changed upon her death. Normally, when a famous person, celebrity, or world leader dies, their infobox image was normally changed to the older photos (whether colored or black and white). Examples are shown below, which include:

Elizabeth II

• 
  Infobox image before her death (taken in 2015)
• 
  Infobox image after her death (taken in 1959)

Meat Loaf

• 
  Infobox image before his death (taken in 2019)
• 
  Infobox image after his death (taken in 1971)

Ronnie Spector

• 
  Infobox image before her death (taken in 2010)
• 
  Infobox image after her death (taken in 1966)

Because of this, do we have to vote for the final infobox picture once and for all? Image choices are shown below.

Image choices

• 
  Option I
• 
  Option II
• 
  Option III
• 
  Option IV
• 
  Option V
• 
  Option VI
• Option VII
  Option VII

RMXY (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Appreciate that a younger picture might be relevant. But any black and white image would seem to keep her locked in the 60s? Her period of mega-stardom was definitely technicoloured. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Option III has the highest quality, and showcases her prime as well. Option III also shows Tina Turner focusing on the camera more than any of the other pictures. RTSthestardust (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Cast your !votes below this line

• Option V. mainly because it's not black and white, but also because it shows her performing. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree re Option V. Wollro (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option VI or one of the other colour images. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option II. Even though it was the infobox image before she had passed (rest in peace, legend) the black and white photos don't capture her most successful tenure as a solo act. Tina has this trademark recognizable fuzzy blond hairstyle in the 80s, which is her biggest era, so most people wouldn't recognize her straight haired and in black and white. I suggest keeping the current image as is, as the other options are either taken before she became a famous solo act, or the other color photos are unflattering at best. Option V is the second best option though. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I per nom. Typically, after celebrities pass away, a black and white photo/or image of them during their prime are used for the infobox. The same should be true here. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  1970 was hardly "during her prime"? Certainly not in terms of her career, her commercial success or her private life. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option V or VI She is internationally most recognized from the 80s era. --Mika1h (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option VI The 1980s look is iconic, and comes from the time of her greatest recognition. A lot of obituaries I saw leading with photos from this era. I only see the 60s and 70s looks take precedence in articles discussing her marriage. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option V - most known for 80s --FMSky (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I - It's the best one where we see her face, good quality and represents everything as to why we're having this discussion in the first place (young Turner, good quality image and shows her during her peak). --73.110.175.228 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I Options VI and V are in bad quality, you either can't see her face or it shows an unflattering angle. Option I is the best one because it's shows her face in a good angle, it's in black and white and is in overall good shape. Also per 79.66.89.36 and 73.110.175.228. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  @TDKR Chicago 101: Options VI and I are in bad quality... Option I is the best one...: Typo?—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option V captures Turner's 80s prime the best — the lighting in Option VI is a bit harsh and it's landscape rather than portrait, which isn't ideal for an infobox. It is a shame we don't have an 80s equivalent of Option III, though, as it's a clear portrait of her face. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option V While I think Option I is a better quality image, she is most known for her work in the 80s. This photo best captures how she is remembered. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I, it’s the best quality for an infobox. You can clearly see her face and also see that it’s her (unlike Option V). It also captures her when she became a major star in the late 60s/early 70s (effectively she had two prime periods in her career). Black and white image is a non issue either. Tub st (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I. Best looking picture; these performance photos aren't that good, honestly (II is actually the best one in that category). Let's keep this more neutral one for the infobox, and the ones of her on-stage for the article itself. NJ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I I would say, although it needs slight editing to reduce overall darkness, and capture the light of III, which has great lighting. Maybe slight cropping around the sides and top, to focus it more on Tina also. I would do it, but there are better editors out there for such things. I've always been a fan of infobox images that focus on someone's face, ala Brigitte Bardot & Rita Hayworth, which are amazing main images, as opposed to the main image of Elvis, which captures him in performance from a distance. My two cents. Michael0986 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option V or II Ideally the lead image should be from the subject's peak. We don't default to black and white automatically. Her peak was her solo career, not in the the 1970s: "...becoming a brighter star in her 40s and 50s than she had been in her youth" (The Washington Post), "...went on to find even greater success as a solo artist in the 1980s" (BBC), Sources of her death are not leading with images from the 70s. Option II at least somewhat looks like she did in the 80s, and has a better view of her face than even V.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option I This picture has the best quality, and you can see her face clearly in the picture. Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option V or II Both sufficiently demonstrate her performance style and persona at or near the peak of her popularity and are the style and image most associated with her that are most prominent in the public sphere. The black-and-white images are of a good quality, but do not bear much resemblance to her image at the height of her career. A google image search confirms this, discounting very recent images, the majority of the images of her are from the 1980s period. Very few are from the 1960s. --Jayron32 17:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option V I think V is the best option as it is Tina as she is best remembered, a performer on stage, and at the peak of her popularity. She's also in a typical Tina Turner stance. In terms of composition, cropping and representation of its subject as they are most recognised, I consider it the best here by a mile. Though she's facing away from the camera, I think you can glean her facial features well and she'd be neatly facing the text if we use it. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Anything but Option II or VI: I agree that the infobox image should be changed to one from her younger years, which rules Option II out, and I believe Option VI is not suitable for an infobox. Whether we use her 80s era or 60s/70s era, it does not matter to me, all of the other options are acceptable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Nationality

Should we remove the nationality also in the short description? RMXY (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace

Currently, the article says Turner was born in Brownsville, Tennessee. There are three sources listed for this statement. One of those three sources says she was born in Brownsville, another says she was born in Nutbush, and the third is a book that I don't have access to. To make matters more challenging, footnote #16, which is nearby, cites 1940 census data, but both the original link to that source and the archived link are dead.

I ran a couple of Google searches and found that some say Tina was born in Brownsville, while others say that she was born in Nutbush.

Does anybody have any information as to which birthplace is correct? MonMothma (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Tina said that she was born near/or in Nutbush in the song Nutbush City Limits, so idk. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It was a performance on (soul train i think) [2] TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Did Ikette Ann Thomas affect their marriage?

Basically if Ike had a daughter, Mia (real name Cicily) outside of Ike and Tina's marriage did any of that affect their marriage? Yes or no? Basically Ann lived in/or near their home in California and was possibly connected to the couple, by the time Mia was born. I do not know how Ike would sleep with Ann in their marriage but is this mentioned in the article about Ann or Mia? TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well if it is that, but how can she affect their marriage because that Tina had fought her in a altercation smth like that, but how can we match the chemistry of their relationship while Ike was still married to Tina and Ann was living with them because they were sister wives. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 17:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)