This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 11,634,915 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Most media reports have described the Villa Algonquin in Küsnacht as a property with ten buildings and ponds. But this description is of Tina Turner's large estate in Stäfa, at the village's extreme Eastern tip, as shown in satellite images. At the villa Turner was a tenant from 1998 onwards, remaining so through a change in ownership in 2020 until her death. The estate she bought in September 2021 but did not move to. Both are directly on Lake Zürich. Küsnacht is 8 km from Zürich. Stäfa is 25 km away from the city.
Do you think her nationality and citizenship in the lead should be restored? Maybe the first sentence of the lead can describe Turner as "an American and Swiss singer."
Also, an RfC on this topic was already carried out and closed last June (see above). We should stay with consensus decision-making - this is the Wikipedia way, anyway. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've had several replies to this, but I just realized this was asked again by the same user a month after their last consensus they started was closed on 19 June 2023 to remove nationality. The recent consensus removes the constant debate of whether she should be just "American" or "American-born Swiss", etc and IDK what's wrong with it. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Normal format used regularly would be American-Swiss. The opposition to such a normal term flabbergasts me. Do some Americans think there are no black people in Switzerland; that a great American star like Turnar can't possibly have been an American-Swiss singer? Why in this particular case does it rub some people the wrong way to use what's normal? Gives me a very uneasy felling, to put it mildly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored "American-born Swiss." That was the format for years (same one as "American-born Greek" for Maria Callas). Removing any reference whatsoever to Turner's nationality -- as if she were stateless -- contravenes Wikipedia usage; the nationality is always mentioned, and in the very first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.77.207 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the nationality is always mentioned - This is not true at all. Per WP:ETHNICITY, nationality can be omitted if it is disputed or agreed to be omitted. Elon Musk is a notable example.
Anyways, this has been a tedious back and fourth for years. The problem is, many people feel that she is notable for being an American, not Swiss. Describing her as "Swiss" would not be accurate to her life/birth/identity/etc. While others argue that because she obtained Swiss citizenship, and died there, she has every right to be called "Swiss". In the end, this has been going on for years and I think omitting it removes much of the headache it has brought over the years. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is really happening is that American editors are offended that Tina Turner was no longer American. Ridiculous patriotic issue. Tina Turner, for legal purposes, ceased to be an American to acquire Swiss nationality. And so it must be said: American-botn Swiss singer, as a matter of common sense. We can't make anything up on Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do some Americans think there are no black people in Switzerland - No one's denying that people of African descent live in Switzerland, the same way Europeans can be Japanese citizens or be from India. But her career and her all but 10 years of her life have been as an American, and this is where many of the discussions have disagreed on calling her "Swiss".
In the end, various users agreed that we should omit her nationality; especially since this debate has been going on for years and is now being brought up again. As to answer this once again brought back RfC, I agree to keep it as it is, and to stay with the last consensus which wasn't even made a full year ago. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is as per Clear Looking Glass. See WP:Consensus. I wish people would take the time to read the discussion history on this issue, although I admit it's now in the archive (see the “Lead Section” part of [[1]]) in which numerous editors participated). Let's leave this for now and move on to improving the page. Qflib (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tennessee comment The second paragraph in the lead begins: Born in Tennessee... The state is not linked, but most people outside of America (at best, possibly North America) are likely not familiar with it, so United States should be mentioned (MOS:NOFORCELINK) or even used in place of Tennessee. I understand that the consensus was not to mention nationality in the lead sentence, but that doesn't preclude providing some context of her locale somewhere else in the lead, which is currently missing for anyone not already familiar with her.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to American. MOS:NATIONALITY is determined solely by relevance to the subject's notability. Arguments like "She was not American at the time of her death" completely miss the point, Isaac Asimov wasn't an American at the time of his birth but he's cited in the guidelines as a person who should be referred to solely as an American because his birthright Russian citizenship isn't relevant to his notability. Turner's citizenship change came years after retirement and she really only has notability as an American. Describing her as an "American-Swiss singer" or "American-born Swiss singer" doesn't make any sense to me because she didn't have an active professional music career (e.g. releasing any new material or performing live) as a Swiss national. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For legal and administrative purposes, which is what is really decisive and important, Tina Turner was no longer a citizen of the United States at the time of her death, but was a citizen of Switzerland. Totally independent of whether as a Swiss she did one thing or the other. What we cannot have a biographical article without a specific nationality. American-born Swiss is the best option, as she was born in the USA and died as a citizen of Switzerland. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - not only was she continually notable while in Switzerland (where she lived for some two decades before becoming a citizen), but she pointedly renounced her U.S. citizenship. Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to American - having nothing is misleading, and 'American-Swiss' is not right. What she did for the last 10 years of her life can be explained elsewhere in the lede. GiantSnowman21:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense. We are talking about nationality, which is the legal relationship a person has with a country and the legal consequences of this. Tina Turner wasn't American at the time of her death, but Swiss. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to American. I agree with Clear Looking Glass, the vast majority of her life and her initial fame occurred when she was an American. As long as we mention her Swiss citizenship in the lead section I don't see the problem. Or, if her Swiss citizenship is significant, we could even do the same as Marie Curie's article and say American and naturalized-Swiss.
American-born singer … (Summoned by bot) then cover her adopting Swiss citizenship somewhere later in the lead, where apt. To not succinctly cover that her origins, musical style and most of her career were 'American' in character seems to fail to address a fundamental fact about her, however to ignore that she later chose to renounce that citizenship and make a second life elsewhere seems almost equally remiss, and simply factually misleading. I'm never in favour of hyphenated nationalities, as it's often unclear how the two halves relate (sentences like "Alphonse was an Italian-American …" are often unclear, do they mean ethnicity/nationality, birth country/later nationality or simply dual citizenship). Her 'Swissness' is largely a private matter, but nonetheless, we need to be clear about it in the same way that we are clear about other private matters like birth name.Pincrete (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything with "born" doesn't really work with MOS:NATIONALITY. Leave it out or make it American and Swiss. She became a citizen of Switzerland so just calling her an American is misleading since it required her to renounce her US citizenship. Nemov (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
American and Swiss doesn't work either, what does it mean? Dual nationality? Not in her case since it is firstly American then, later Swiss. Also it does nothing to indicate how either citizenship was acquired. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From how I look at it, peering into the discussion and the edit history, I think you escalated this dispute way too quickly. I don't know who added the "Please start RFC before replacing image" tag, but that shouldn't have been done in the manner that it was. I think that both GreatestLuv and you didn't follow procedure.
It would have been more proper to cite a specific RFC in the comment and to suggest that editors start a discussion before taking action. In GreatestLuv's defense, though, I did find an RFC here which confirmed that the current image was selected by RFC.
Per WP:RFCBEFORE, as cited by Nemov, it didn't seem like that you followed procedure. RFCs aren't something that you should use loosely and for everything. I would recommend that you start a new discussion, pinging GreatestLuv and some other recent substantial contributors to the article about your proposed change. A better idea would have been to reach a consensus beforehand. Keep your discussion civil as well, and try not to use terms like "objectively better" or "completely absurd reversal"; using those words and phrases can give the appearance that you're wikilawyering.
If you do need to start an RFC, pose the RFC with a neutrally-phrased question. An example should be: "Should option A or option B be the image used in the infobox?". Leave it at that. You're more than welcome to place your own opinion below it in bullet points, where others can reply to the conversation. Again, though, try to reach a consensus first. It's also courteous to ping the previous participants of RFCs involved.
Also, considering that there is already a separate discussion about Turner's nationality above, I would not recommend running two or more RFCs about the same article simultaneously. It's heavily discouraged here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t start an edit war. On WP:3RR means you should only revert 3 times in a row, and thats it. I reverted twice, and please, stop pinging me. This is getting on my nerves. If you never changed the image in the first place, I wouldn’t have gotten tangled into this mess. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing in the hidden note says that. It says "Please do not change the image. This has already been discussed in the talk page; please do so before changing". I meant if you wanted to start a discussion, probably start an RFC or something like that that is related to a discussion. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden note clearly says change the image by discussion first. Days after Turner's death, an RFC was done here to decide whether or not to change the image, and they picked the current image. In my edit summary, I meant to say "Can't you read the message" (I didn’t finish it right in my edit summary) because you needed to discuss this on this talk page first. I meant something like a RFC or something like that. I don’t care if what I did was wrong, I was just telling you to make a discussion to discuss about changing the image. We should be discussing this like mature people, not seven year olds. For your information, I didn't disrespect WP:3RR in that kind of way. I said I reverted twice, which is not any edit warring violation. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, apparently my editing two verbs to put them in the past perfect (Wikipedians really must learn to stop writing like nine-year-olds), and my removing a pesky extraneous umlaut is all enough to qualify me as a photograph critic. Well, I have looked at the two photographs that were the subject of the "completely absurd reversal", and I like the replacement better. So there. Kelisi (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelisi I only asked for the opinion of the article's most recent editors, not “photograph critics”. I just asked for your opinion as a layman. Sorry if I bother you. Chronus (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
