Talk:Tina Turner/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Tina Turner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Name. Again.

Tina is the stage name, her former husband gave her. Turner is the surname she gained through her marriage to Ike Turner. Her name today is not Anna Mae Bullock with "Tina Turner" only being a stage name, as suggested by the first sentence of the article. It is similar to Chaka Khan (née Yvette Stevens), where Chaka is a chosen name and Khan is the real surname she got via marriage. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Tina Turner recieved Swiss citizenship

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Glorious "grandma rock and roll," Tina Turner (73) that for almost 20 years living in Kuesnacht near Zuerich, has received Swiss citizenship rights, the city administration has announced, adding that the certificate should still give Canton Zurich, and state authorities. Tina Turner has taught German and settled in Switzerland 1995th accompanying partner Erwin Bach, who works in the recording industry.78.3.213.194 (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is she is only part way through the process, she is still only a US national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.93.202 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thus, foreigners who acquire Swiss citizenship and Swiss citizens who voluntarily acquire another citizenship keep their previous citizenship see Swiss nationality law. Swiss law is a bit more complicated than I thought, but based on the WP page, she is probably now a Swiss citizen in terms of privileges. And until further notice she I think should be thought to have retained her US nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.93.202 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the only valid thing about this citizenship story is she finally was allowed to be a Swiss citizen but not necessarily giving up her US citizenship. So I guess we can say she is an American-Swiss woman now, huh? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Along these same lines, in the section about Subsequent Releases, there is a sentence about the recording for Golden Eye saying, "Its huge success in Europe and modest success in her formerly native United States led Turner to record a new album...". I'm deleting the word 'formerly' because, in this usage, the word 'native' means the place where one was born. Wherever Ms. Turner lives, and whatever citizenship(s) she holds, the United States will always be the land of her nativity. 79.75.87.76 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the opening para, from an ungrammatical reference to her being Swiss, to read "American-born", which seems more appropriate given the uncertainty over her citizenship. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The general practice on the pages of people who change their citizenship or acquire additional citizenships late in their careers is to continue to describe them by their original citizenship. John Huston is still an "American director" and not an American-born director, despite renouncing to become Irish in the 60s. Yul Brynner is a "Russian-born American actor", not a "Swiss actor", Similarly Bobby Fischer is not an "Icelandic chess player" despite receiving their passport late in his life. The only people who get described by their new citizenship are the ones whose notability is actually related to their new country of citizenship: for example Han Ye-seul and Yu Geon are described as "Korean" not because of their renunciation of US citizenship but because they work in the South Korean entertainment industry and not the US one.

This accords with WP:OPENPARA: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." quant18 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So why can't Tina Turner be described as Swiss-American, since she is Swiss AND American simultaneously? Why should one citizenship prevail? Why does everyhting have to be so simple in US minds, always one OR the other, with no room for any complexity whatsoever? And people, Tina Turner was born American, lived in the US for a long time, yet she deliberately chose to leave the country decades ago, is very happy about it and decided to adopt the citizenship of her new home. Face it. By not allowing to call her Swiss-American, you are ignoring her own will. On the German Wikipedia (second largest), they have no problem understanding that. But well, I'm not here to change the world. Cheers. Polqay (talk)

As I said before, I'd favour "American-born" in the lead, rather than just American. I don't favour "Swiss-American" - to me, that would signify someone who was Swiss-born but later became American. One possibility is "American-Swiss". Per Quant18's comments, I think WP:BLP is relevant here; describing her in the opening sentence as American, unqualified, is not necessarily strictly true in terms of her citizenship. We should err towards terminology that she herself, or her advisers, would consider appropriate. That doesn't apply to Huston, Brynner, or Fischer, who are dead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. American-Swiss sounds good to me. Another option could be: "Tina Turner, is singer, dancer, and actress, whose career has spanned more than half a century, earning her widespread recognition and numerous awards. She is considered the "Queen of Rock". Born in the United States, where she lived during most of her career, she moved to Switzerland in 1995 and eventually acquired the Swiss citizenship." Let's wait a few days and see what others think. Polqay (talk)

I agree we should see what others think. My only comment on your suggestion is that it's too wordy for the lead - the introduction should be mainly about her, rather than the question of her citizenship. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think calling her an American-Swiss singer is appropriate instead of "Swiss-American" since her nationality remains American. She IS a Swiss citizen now so that should be recognized as well. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of these "double barrelled" adjectives, which are confusing and easily misunderstood: does "American Swiss" mean a dual citizen, a person of mixed descent, the children of American immigrants to Switzerland, or what? The problem is compounded because such terminology is rarely used outside of North America, or is used in reverse: British Chinese, Iranian Georgian, etc. One suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Nationality and the wording of OPENPARA was to list the nationalities separated by "and", which makes things less confusing.

But the real problem here is the over-emphasis on legal nationality in the lede. Being a singer and moving to Switzerland late in your life doesn't make you a "Swiss singer" any more than Bobby Fischer was an "Icelandic chess player". I don't see that BLP has anything to do with it either: sources continued to describe Huston as an "American director" throughout his life. quant18 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that an allusion to her current citizenship in the lead is over-emphasis - it's important enough for a very very brief (one word?) mention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If it has to be there, it should be mentioned in a way that doesn't give a misleading impression of her active career as a singer (which was never at the same time as being a Swiss citizen, nor in the Swiss entertainment industry). I liked Polqay's idea of simply not mentioning her nationality at all in the first sentence, and figuring out some way to work it into a subsequent sentence or paragraph. quant18 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would call her an American-born singer that is now Swiss. That leaves the states as her place of socialization as much as it satisfies her personal decisions as well as the fact that she's not a US citizen anymore. Have a look at Einsteins page. It's the same there with Germany. He held numerous passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.82.68.31 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

Anna Mae Bullock (born November 26, 1939), better known by her stage name Tina Turner, is a singer, dancer and actress, whose career has spanned more than half a century, earning her widespread recognition and numerous awards. Born in the United States, she is now a Swiss citizen.....

Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for late response. Was waiting for others to express their opinion because I already talk too much, but I guess no one else has further comments. It looks fine to me. In any case I think it's much better than the undiscussed change to the lede by 188.154.150.219 last week, so I'm WP:BOLDly just going to copy your suggestion in right now. Of course anyone who disagrees can revert me to some previous version & come here with further discussion. quant18 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if this wrinkle has been ironed out except for one detail: where is the evidence that Turner has renounced her US citizenship? I can't find a credible source quoted since Turner was granted Swiss citizenship that claims she has renounced her US citizenship ("according to reports" won't do). US law does not require a renunciation to take up another citizenship. The opening, as it's currently written, "Born in the United States, she is now a Swiss citizen", implies that Turner has given up her US citizenship. Until such time as we have evidence of a renunciation, we should presume she is still a US citizen and phrase it, "Born in the United States, she is also a citizen of Switzerland." Thoughts? 212.139.240.108 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The place to watch for confirmation of Turner's renunciation will be the Federal Register (the US government's official record). It publishes a quarterly list of renunciations by US citizens. Check this page in mid-August for news of expatriations in the second quarter of 2013. 212.139.240.108 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Born in the United States, she is now a Swiss citizen" does not imply that she has renounced her US citizenship at all. It says nothing about the subject. We don't know whether she has or not - so, the wording is, quite correctly, ambiguous. Your suggested wording states unambiguously that she is still a US citizen - for which I don't think we have any justification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, on first read, I would interpret the current wording to mean that she has renounced her US citizenship, so I'd suggest that others might as well; but, that's the problem with ambiguous wording - it will mean different things to different readers. I wouldn't have thought ambiguity was the ("correctly") desired goal of an encyclopedia, but I certainly agree with you that ambiguity is where the current wording leads readers. As for needing a justification to write that Turner is still a US citizen: since she's been a US citizen all her life, I think a justification is needed to write (or imply), even ambiguously, that she's not a US citizen (the burden of proof resting with those asserting that things are not as they have always been). In that case, my suggested wording, "Born in the United States, she is also a citizen of Switzerland", is both unambiguous and as factual as can be determined (given the information we have available to us at this time). When you have good evidence that she has renounced, then you'll have a justification to write, unambiguously or otherwise, that she has done so, but not before. 212.139.240.108 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Please don't alter my indents, I set them as I meant to. Thanks.

Associated with The Archies

The infobox has The Archies listed under Associated Acts, but here is no reference to that in the body of the article. I don't mean to be picky. I was very surprised to see that and wanted more information. Elaborate or delete? BinkyGee (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is no information. Someone put that in there for some reason. I'll delete it unless the person who added it has an explanation for why Tina is supposedly associated with them. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Rock/Rock 'n' Roll mentioned twice.

The intro is still disorganized. There's one mention of Tina being referred to as "Queen of Rock", and another mentioning Tina as "Queen of Rock 'n' Roll". Maybe it's best to delete the "Queen of Rock 'n' Roll" stuff and just have that one title of "Queen of Rock"? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tina's nationality (August 2013)

Why is it that Tina can't be described as an "American-born Swiss singer..." Is it because she is black and NOT white? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirsonturner (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Black, white, green, or purple – becoming a Swiss citizen in her 70s has zero to do with her notability. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tina didn't just move to Switzerland and become a citizen on the same day. She's lived for about 18 years now. She IS Swiss as much as she's been an American! Citizenship should have NOTHING to do with one's racial identity, but obviously it does in this forum. Ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirsonturner (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly assume good faith rather than implying that people who disagree with you are racist. You don't know the race of any of the rest of us involved in this discussion, nor is that the slightest bit relevant to whether or not someone who is never active in the Swiss entertainment industry is properly described as a "Swiss singer". quant18 (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason why your edit is she is always referred to as a singer, as she is now. Her nationality is still American, not just Swiss. Having her referred to as a Swiss citizen is better than having her be referred to as a Swiss singer and race has nothing to do with the edit reversal. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Never active in the Swiss entertainment industry?" Tina has been VERY active in Swiss life and business;She's not only been living there for 18 years now, but she's worked with several Swiss artists and business people. Again, it's becoming a LOT more clear as to WHY those of you object to her being referenced as a Swiss: race and upbringing. It's too bad that you all can't see beyond that. Check yourselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirsonturner (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion above. But you all should drop the racism topic. This really got nothing to do with it. It's a question of nationality vs citizenship. Classically, your citizenship is your nationality, because the modern concept of nationality comes from nation state, not from the traditional concept of "nation" when is used as ethnicity. So, even though "Peirsonturner"'s accuses are wrong, he is basically right. Tina Turner is Swiss just as Arnold Schwarzenegger is an American.--JakobvS (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

She was born an American citizen. She was raised an American citizen. Most important to this discussion under WP:OPENPARA, she achieved notability and maintained notability for over 50 years as an American citizen. For the last 19 of those years, she resided in Switzerland while still remaining an American citizen. Finally, after over 74 years as an American citizen, she has now been a Swiss citizen for three months. Swiss singer? Seriously? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Tina has been known most of her life as American. Far from being a Swiss singer. I also think we should eliminate the Swiss categories with exceptions to "American emigrants to Switzerland" and "American expatriates in Switzerland". BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"She is Swiss" is contentious and debatable. "She was born in America and now holds Swiss citizenship" is uncontentious, and gives much greater clarity. I mention it because, still, we are getting editors attempting to impose a potentially misleading form of words. I've reverted the last one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, some folks are seriously trying to make it seem like she should only be identified as Swiss. I don't get that. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Born in the United States, she now also holds Swiss citizenship" or "Born in the United States, she now holds dual US/Swiss citizenship" would give even MORE clarity. I see that the Federal Register doesn't list anybody with the surnames Bullock, Turner or Bach as having expatriated in the second quarter of 2013, so Tina doesn't seem to have given up her U.S. citizenship at the first opportunity. 212.139.252.175 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That list is pretty notorious for being incomplete; there's folks who gave up U.S. citizenship as long ago as 2004 but never appeared (see List of former United States citizens who relinquished their nationality, sort by the "Federal Register" column), and the FBI gives a much larger count of people renouncing citizenship than the Federal Register does . Given that there is no WP:RS confirmation whether she does or doesn't still hold US citizenship, and some sources suggested she might relinquish while others didn't say anything about it, the wording that's there right now ("Born and raised in the United States, she lives in Switzerland and holds Swiss citizenship.") seems to be best — it conveys all the information we know for sure without making any unsupported assumptions. quant18 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just look at what you've written: "Some sources" suggested she might... Some sources have suggested that Queen Elizabeth II is a reptilian paedophile and/or shapeshifter but that doesn't make it so. Likewise "some sources" suggesting that Turner might (at some indefinite time in the future) renounce her US citizenship is so pathetically vague and weak as to warrant prima facie dismissal. That Turner still holds US citizenship is an assumption (indeed, that she's still alive is an assumption!), but it's firmly supported by the facts that 1) she held US citizenship for the first 73 years of her life and 2) that there's not a whiff of evidence, credible or otherwise, that she's renounced it (much like the assumption that she's still alive because there's no evidence of her death). What you need is WP:RS confirmation that she has relinquished her US citizenship. Until then, the only logical assumption is that she has not. The article should clearly reflect that by stating that she is still a US citizen (and that she is still alive). 212.139.252.175 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Various reliable sources have run some variation of the phrase "Turner, who renounced U.S. citizenship earlier this year ..."; they did not quote conspiracy theorists like the Queen Elizabeth articles you pointed to or write Betteridge's law headlines; they stated it as a fact in their own editorial voice. Two even within the past week, according to Google News . I believve other sources have said that she retains U.S. citizenship, though I misremember where I have seen this statement. One or the other of these must be wrong. You can contribute to efforts to figure out which is wrong by pointing to on-topic reliable sources, rather than by making snide comments with unhelpful analogies. And the lede is not the place for "he-said she-said"; when reliable sources differ, the lede should state the known facts succinctly and leave the disputes to the article body. quant18 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Queen of Rock and Roll (August 2013)

I do not understand because they leave append in the first paragraph of article information from Tina Turner as The Queen of Rock and Roll, knowing that is important information.

As should be the first paragraph of Article:

Anna Mae Bullock (born November 26, 1939), known by her stage name Tina Turner,^[1][2] is a singer, dancer, actress, author, and choreographer, whose career has spanned more than half a century, earning her widespread recognition and numerous awards. Born and raised in the United States, she lives in Switzerland and holds Swiss citizenship. Her career developed over fifty years ago, one of the most significant cultural icons of the rock, she is often referred to as "The Queen of Rock".

--Artistofrockandrollartist (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know "most significant cultural icon" because it screams NPOV but maybe we can edit that bit of the intro. I'm undecided at the moment. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

She has occasionally been called "The Queen of Rock'n'Roll", etc. - for instance here - but I don't think it's in such widespread and uncontentious use that it should be included in the opening paragraphs. It gives the appearance of being WP:FANCRUFT, which we've tried to remove from this article in the past. Maybe mention it somewhere in the article text? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe even, you know, the fourth paragraph of the lede, where it is currently included. Fat&Happy (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot that. I think I unbolded it, which I will defend if pressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol yeah it's best to leave it at the fourth paragraph. I don't want this article to be biased. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tina's nationality (October 2013)

Tina Turner is now an swiss citizen. She gave up her american nationaity. Is important to clarify this point. I read this in several articals. According to Atlanta Black Star and several other newspappers, Tina Turner renounces her U.S citizenship to become an official citizen of Switzerland. She is an Swiss citizen. Also from this newspapper: Seeking citizenship in Switzerland means that the music icon is ready to no longer be a citizen of the U.S. and is ready to pay some higher taxes in order to be a citizen in the country she considers home. “Tina Turner will therefore also give back her U.S citizenship,” Turner’s agent explained.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.85.133 (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Provide us with a link to a reliable source, and we can change the article. Until then, we can't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the link : http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/01/26/tina-turner-renounces-u-s-citizenship-for-swiss/ I have more. I have search in internet. Every article says the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.85.133 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a reference (under "Residences and citizenship") to the fact that it was announced that she intended to renounce her citizenship. We still haven't seen a reliable source stating that she has actually done that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't this follow under personal research? I thought that wasn't allowed here? I'd remove it for the time being. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't say that "it was reported that she would" renounce her citizenship. There are less reliable sources that say that she has done so. It's clearly a matter worthy of note, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless Tina herself addresses it, I'll consider it moot. You know how articles are. Sometimes they print the truth and sometimes it's a half-truth. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Her agent is quoted here. I think that satisfies WP:RS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A clarification: Tina Turner did not renounce her U.S. citizenship; she relinquished her U.S. citizenship. By voluntarily obtaining naturalization in a foreign country upon her own application after having attained the age of eighteen year, she loses her U.S. citizenship (see Section 349 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act). Renouncing one's U.S. citizenship involves making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, something Tina Turner did not do. (Source) ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right that the correct term is "relinquishment" and not "renunciation" (and thanks for making that correction in the article), but to be honest there is little practical difference between the two. Both processes require an in-person embassy/consulate visit, some paperwork, and a lot of waiting. About the only real difference is that relinquishers can still buy guns and transport explosives in interstate commerce in the U.S., whereas renunciants are prohibited under the Gun Control Act of 1968 .

In particular, that WaPo blog post is totally wrong about the tax consequences of relinquishment: people who relinquish and people who renounce (and for that matter, people who are denaturalised) are treated exactly the same for tax purposes . I tweeted at the writer, hopefully he'll issue a correction later. This is an example of what's mentioned in WP:NEWSBLOG: "use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". quant18 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

cocaine overdose vs. cardiovascular disease

The line "On December 12, 2007, Turner's ex-husband Ike Turner died from a cocaine overdose, brought on by emphysema and cardiovascular disease" makes no sense. His cocaine overdose was brought on by cardiovascular disease? Maybe it was the other way around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.7.170 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Usually in biographical articles a person's nationality is mentioned in the first sentence. When someone has changed their nationality this is often mentioned. E.g. Albert Einstein "was a German-born theoretical physicist", Arnold Schwarzenegger "is an Austrian American actor, politician, businessman, investor, and former professional bodybuilder.", Peter Thiel "is a German-born US entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and hedge fund manager.", Charlize Theron "is a South African and American actress and fashion model". So Tina Turner is an American-born singer or maybe an American Swiss singer or an American-born Swiss singer or perhaps an American and Swiss singer. No big deal, right? Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All of those people you mention who are described as Americans got their American citizenship in early-or mid-career, and maintained & even furthered their careers while holding it. Same principle applies mutatis mutandis for the other citizenship of people called "American-born Fooian", like Ron Dermer, William Heinecke, and Terry Gilliam. Even the exceptions demonstrate the basic principle: "American-born Japanese scholar" Donald Keene, for example, may not have become a Japanese citizen until age 91, but he spent literally his entire adult life since age 20 studying the country & its language and literature.

The compromise made here after the extensive discussions above — not mentioning citizenship in the lede sentence at all — is hardly unique. See for example T. S. Eliot ('essayist, publisher, playwright, literary and social critic and "one of the twentieth century's major poets."', not "American-born British essayist").

Many other times the new nationality is not mentioned at all in the first sentence, particularly in these cases where someone changes their citizenship late in their lives. (Notice that Einstein, who got his U.S. citizenship at age 61, is not called a "German-born American"; his Americanness isn't even mentioned until the third paragraph.) This accords with WP:OPENPARA: "if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". E.g. Bobby Fischer ("American chess prodigy" not "Icelandic chess prodigy"), Yul Brynner ("Russian-born American actor" not "Swiss actor"), W. E. B. Du Bois ("American sociologist" not "Ghanaian sociologist"), and John Huston ("American film director" not "Irish film director"). Tina Turner's association with Switzerland is much more analogous to these cases than to Keene's association with Japan, let alone Heinecke's with Thailand, or even Eliot's with Britain. quant18 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Queen of Rock and Roll (January 2014)

January 2014 edit: From the Rolling Stone magazine, Entertainment Weekly, The Encyclopedia of Rock Stars, The Kennedy Center Honors, other entertainers, rock historians, Tina Turner is the Queen of Rock n' Roll. I added the category Honorific nicknames in popular music | The Queen of Rock n Roll. Why? Because Tina Turner earned this just as Aretha Franklin earned Queen of Soul; do not delete without discussion. --United4Truth - Objectivity in Journalism and Documentation 12:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Martha Nell"

Over at the Ike Turner article, an IP is repeatedly trying to insert material sourced from this 1996 radio interview, in which Ike claims not only that he was never legally married to Tina, but that her real birth name was not Anna Mae Bullock but Martha Nell Bullock. Her mother supposedly preferred and used the name Anna Mae, but it was never legally changed from the name on her birth certificate. The name "Martha Nell Turner" appears as Tina's legal name on a 1977 contract shown here. There is some discussion of this on various online forums such as this one, but, though it was mentioned in this 2007 edit, it hasn't been discussed to any extent on this page. Should it be given any weight at all, and should it be mentioned in this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't think it'll be accepted. Plus, the Martha Nell thing sounds like original research and I don't think Wikipedia allows that here. It is weird though. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is her married name "Tina Bach Turner"?

Tina Turner fan site referred to her as "Tina Bach Turner". So that may be her legal name now. If so the article should reflect that. A search on "tina bach turner" did yield results. So it may be officially her name.

http://www.tinaturnerfanclub.eu/news/news_wedding2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.109.163 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. She hadn't legally changed her name to Tina Turner. If anything, her married name would be Anna Mae Bullock Bach or Anna Mae Bach, not Tina Bach and definitely not Tina Bach Turner. I also think Erwin names her by her birth name. Tina Turner was and is still just her stage name. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

She had legally changed her last name to Turner via her marriage to Ike. Only the "Tina" part is a stage name. ♆ CUSH ♆

Yeah. That means her married name now would be Anna Mae Bach. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tina Turner Suffers a Stroke (15th Feb 2014)

Dunno how true this is: http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/tina-turner-suffers-a-stroke/ Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Last I heard, it wasn't. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"to formally relinquish (but not renounce)" her US Citizenship?

How can you relinquish it, but not renounce it? The article also states "she would relinquish her U.S. citizenship." With the sentance linked to "Renunciation of US Citizenship". Sounds like someone is confused.184.155.130.147 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See this source (and previous discussions on this page) - "The key word in the embassy report apparently is the term “relinquishment.” That means, a knowledgeable source told us, that she did not “formally renounce her U.S. citizenship under 349(a)(5) Immigration and Nationality Act, but took Swiss citizenship with the intent to lose her U.S. citizenship.” As opposed to formal renunciation — a much more complex process, we were told — there are no “tax or other penalties for loss of citizenship in this fashion.”" Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not your fault, but that WaPo source is completely wrong about the tax thing, and issued a correction a couple of days later after an actual tax lawyer rather than some anonymous "knowledgeable source" explained reality to them. See also TaxProf Blog.

I think the quote mentioned by the IP should just be changed to "give up her U.S. citizenship"; the distinction between "relinquishment" and "renunciation" is confusing legal nitpicking and is in reality pretty much irrelevant to an understanding of Tina Turner (see also United States nationality law#Loss of citizenship, which barely discusses the difference either because it's so obscure). The two cases are nearly the same thing (with rare exceptions for people who naturalised in other countries decades ago and never "used" their U.S. citizenship since then): you go to a consulate, fill out some paperwork, wait, and in the end you're no longer a U.S. citizen and you owe the expatriation tax. quant18 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is strange. How can she do that, if the US government is not even aware of this process? I've contacted my embassy after receiving foreign naturalization, and the only option is renouncing. Curious how a news site takes precedence over the US government's site? There is nothing on an embassy page, or CBP, DOS, USCIS, etc. that says you can relinquish your citizenship, and not renounce.

Also, why does the link to "relinquish" go to "renounce"?184.155.130.147 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

On top of the fact that the US government has no idea what you or the article is talking about, the wiki linked in the article starts off as "Renunciation is the voluntary act of relinquishing one's citizenship or nationality." So she either renounced her US citizenship, or she didn't. This should be removed from the article.184.155.130.147 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing on an embassy page, or CBP, DOS, USCIS, etc. that says you can relinquish your citizenship wrong, a simple search of "renounce relinquish site:gov" gets you, for example, the US embassy in Canberra , which states "There are two kinds of Loss of Nationality cases: renunciation and relinquishment". The Immigration and Nationality Act uses the term "expatriating act" to cover both renunciation (8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(5) and 6) and everything else sometimes lumped under the heading "relinquishment" (i.e. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1) through 4). quant18 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tina Turner and the Ikettes?

There is no mention of Tina Turner and the Ikettes. They performed backing vocals on many of Frank Zappa's albums. For example, Over-Nite Sensation. Will add it on my TO DO list. If someone has some information to share, please post it HERE.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.193.116.18 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Federal Register Entry for Tina Turner citizenship renunciation does not use her birth name.

[Federal Register 2014 Q1]. The entry uses Tina Turner as her name so that is not her stage name any more it is her only legal name. The article might better read: Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock on November 26, 1939) as her birth name seems to be defunct at this point. Geo8rge (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because her name might've been legally changed doesn't mean that the article should delete that (born XXXX) mention. For example, Elton John legally changed his name to Elton Hercules John but still has (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight) in his article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Compare Elton John with Tina Turner:

Elton John article:Sir Elton Hercules John CBE (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight on 25 March 1947)

Anna Mae Bullock (born November 26, 1939), known by her stage name Tina Turner

Elton John is handled correctly IMO, not so with Tina Turner. From her renunciation of US citizenship she seems to be using Tina Turner as a legal name, not a stage name. Anna Mae Bullock seems to be defunct as her name but the article implies it is still in use. As a minor note she does not include her husbands name in hers. 74.105.92.166 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Federal Register also says that the Israeli village of Kfar Saba , Imagine International Reinsurance Limited , and Mr. Glärnischstrasse 12C Switzerland gave up U.S. citizenship. I doubt that how Turner's name was printed in there has any particular legal meaning either way. quant18 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The article refers to Tina Turner as a stage name. It appears to be the name she uses for all day to day affairs. Read the stage name article. I do not think Tina Turner is her stage name anymore. I doubt she uses Anna Mae Bullock for any purpose, is there any example of her using that name this century?74.105.92.166 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullock is not her surname. Since her marriage to Ike, her legal surname has been Turner. Keeping that surname was an issue in their divorce. "Tina" was added as a stage name. ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits

I corrected poor grammar/mechanics/formatting/references and noted lack of references. These are all valid reasons for making the changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it is not a valid reason for reverting them. - Froid (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem with improvements to grammar or adding references - that's all fine. Because you made very major and radical changes, it was not easy to see what, if any, improvements you made as part of those changes. But the formatting you decided to use is certainly not a "correction" - it's your opinion which appears, as far as I can see, to be unrelated to anything in WP:MOSBIO or any other guidance or policy. And I have no idea what you mean by "mechanics". I very strongly suggest that you revert your last edit to the article, return it to the status quo ante, explain in detail the changes you think should be made (based on guidance and good practice), and (rather than attempting to start an edit war) await further discussions with those editors who made the article a "good article". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an edit war (and I hope you are not). Every editor - whether at Wikipedia or elsewhere - should master mechanics (you can learn what that term means here). And no editor should tolerate poor grammar or references (though you and and other editors of this page seem to have, heretofore), or poorly organized content. As you seem (somewhat) familiar with Wikipedia's style guidelines and policies, you may be able to find faster and easier, than can I, the exact spot where the guidelines/policies indicating that logical order (e.g., chronological or alphabetical) should be used, whenever possible, to organize a section or list. I know that section exists, as I have read it, used it, and even showed it to someone else, in the past. Can't put my finger on it at the moment, and don't at this moment have time to hunt for it, but the policy exists, and I applied it when editing the "Personal life" and "Awards and accolades" sections. Since both of us are operating in good faith, perhaps you can help locate it. It wasn't in the Biograph MOS, but in a larger, more general such page. Froid (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

One of my biggest problems with your edits is that you have ended up with several extremely short and poorly related or explained sections on individuals (notably "Mother" and "Harry Taylor") - purely on the basis that they seem to fit into a chronological sequence that way. Sticking to a rigidly chronological format should not be used as an excuse for poor style. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree. On the other hand, the article needed loads of work, and there's nothing wrong with my having approached it in stages. The fact that you stepped in to address some issues which I would have addressed myself, in subsequent stages, bothers me not; Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative project. The article is now far better than it was a few days ago, when I began working on it. Froid (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

No mention of Frank Zappa on the article? Turner and her Ikettes provided backup vocals for 5 out of the 7 songs on Zappa's album Over-Nite Sensation in 1973. Should this be added? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, along with a credible citation. Froid (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Calearm99 has on several occasions attempted to add material such as this to the page. The edits set out - in a poorly written and incorrectly formatted way, and using blogs and other mostly poor sources - what TT has said are her influences, a summary of some of her achievements, and a list of people who have cited her as an influence on them. So far, I have reverted these changes as unnecessary and and of no significant encyclopedic value. I have asked Calearm99 (a relatively new editor) to explain themselves here. It would be helpful to know if other editors agree with me that the material is not suitable for inclusion in a generally good quality article such as this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you asked...

1. Caution: It does not necessarily follow that content that is "poorly written and incorrectly formatted" must be irrelevant or lacking in "significant encyclopedic value".
2. To Answer Your Query: It is appropriate for a biographical article about a musical entertainer to point out notable artists that entertainer influenced, who or what influenced that entertainer, and achievements not already documented in that article or in an associated article dedicated to that artist's achievements, provided worthy sources can be found to document that information. As such, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that Calearm99's efforts to introduce such material into the article equate to introducing changes that are "unnecessary and of no significant encyclopedic value".
3. Your Wholesale Reversion Appears Overly Hasty or Over-Zealous: As you observed, some - but not all - of Calearm99's sources are "blogs and other mostly poor sources". Some others are Wikipedia-appropriate. Consequently, it was inappropriate to revert all of Calearm99's material. Calearm99's material that both meets the criteria set forth in point (2) and cites Wikipedia-appropriate sources should have been included in the article (albeit copyedited) - and not reverted.
4. Another Approach You Might Consider: Regarding Calearm99's material based on "blogs and other mostly poor sources", s/he should have, but didn't, conduct further research in order to vet any information s/he proposed to include in Wikipedia and to cite better references. Calearm99's failure to so doesn't preclude you (or any other editor) from performing those tasks, in service of point (2). Cursory Internet searches to identify TT's influence on other notable artists and other artists' influences on her yield multiple Wikipedia-worthy sources that provide credible information on those subjects and that support inclusion of that information in this article. Froid (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I'm not sure why you've chosen to make those points now - several months after the editor concerned made their edits - and I don't know why you feel the need to SHOUT - but I agree that some of the content of the edits may have been acceptable. However, it was outweighed by the material that was not acceptable in a neutral and balanced "good article" about a living person, and, I stress again, it is the responsibility of every editor to make sure that their edits are appropriate and properly-sourced, and not expect other editors to clean up after them. Cleaning up is voluntary. Copy-editing is voluntary. Looking up better sources is voluntary. Editors take on responsibility for their own edits, and editors who are not competent at editing in an appropriate manner should expect to have their edits removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In response:

• RE: "I don't know why you feel the need to SHOUT" - Sorry; didn't mean to shout. I acknowledge that using all caps to designate paragraph summaries/intros in an online forum, like this one, can come across as shouting (despite the fact that their use in technical writing is actually good form). I apologize. And I've edited my earlier post, in order to turn down the volume.
• RE: "I'm not sure why you've chosen to make those points now - several months after the editor concerned made their edits"

• • You asked for feedback (not overly long ago, I might add); I answered. And I did so promptly (upon seeing your request). You're welcome.
  • Your OP raised several points - e.g., Calearm99 has made multiple such edits in the past, you've shared your philosophy about and approach to such contributions, and you (seemingly) desire(d) other editors' input on the proper handling such material. To wit, you wrote: "It would be helpful to know if other editors agree with me that the material is not suitable for inclusion in a generally good quality article such as this."
  • Some of the issues your OP raised extend temporally, beyond the past occasions when you've reverted Calearm99's posts (as s/he or another editor may post similar material in the future), and scope-wise, beyond those particular edits and this particular Wikipedia article. Ergo, the value of your having requested feedback, of the feedback I've provided (and that which you may yet receive from other editors), and of the resulting discourse are evergreen.

• RE: The rest of your reply - Um, yeah. Roger that. Fortunately, the Wikipedia comprises editors who have diverse styles and philosophies, and a sufficient number of editors perform those voluntary tasks you so eschew that sobriquets and articles have been dedicated to such WikiElfs, WikiFairies, and Wikignomes. Such editors may be less inclined to use the revert function to throw the baby out with the bathwater, when presented with content that "may [be] acceptable".

I was under the impression that your request for feedback was sincere. Advertently or not, your response belies that impression. Of course, my use of caps might have put you on the defensive and inspired a different reaction than you might otherwise have provided. If so, that's regrettable, and I hope we can continue our discourse on a better note.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tina Turner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-grammyreview_0211gl.ART.State.Edition1.3b2e6d2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Avoid Original Research Please

I've noticed that some editors recently have continually deleted/reverted well-sourced references to Tina's own words in interviews regarding her religious practice, including her most recent interviews on the subject in the Shambhala Sun magazine (2011) and Lion's Roar magazine (2016) in which she identifies her practice of Nichiren Buddhism in the Soka Gakkai International tradition. It appears that certain editors have their own opinions about Tina's religious practice, and have been adding their own views and original research instead of relying on Tina's personal identification of her religious practice. Original research is not appropriate on Wikipedia, especially for a BLP regarding someone's religious views. Please stick to what Tina Turner has said herself. Thanks. QueerMichael (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tina Turner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306075327/http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/codetalk/onap/celebrities.cfm to http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/codetalk/onap/celebrities.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128025616/http://mobile.france24.com/en/20130125-tina-turner-become-swiss-give-us-passport to http://mobile.france24.com/en/20130125-tina-turner-become-swiss-give-us-passport

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)