Talk:Tina Turner/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Fair use rationale for Image:Madmaxs3.jpg

Image:Madmaxs3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

State of Shock

The song, "State of Shock" was NOT recorded by Tina Turner and Mick Jagger, it was recorded by The Jacksons (with lead vocals by Michael Jackson) and Mick Jagger. I think that Tina Turner and Mick Jagger did do a song together, but the name escapes me now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.224.154 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I re-read it. I guess I mis-read it. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.213.26 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

TIna Turner and Mick Jagger did a duet of "State of Shock/It's ONly Rock N Roll" at Live Aid in July of 1985. -Beethovenrox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beethovenrox (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect entry for Feb 10 2008

The entry for her appearance at the Grammys says Tina is 69. With a DoB of Nov 1939, she is only 68 until Nov 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.68.151 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

well written it ain't! chronologically the article hops around all over the place & some of the facts are vague or missing all together (e.g. referencing a song but not naming it!), making it dificult for the reader to follow the biographical thread. i also think the expanded discography style makes the article unnecessarily bulky. all imho, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.22 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article is not well written. Much of it FEELS like there is a chronological structure, but more than once it backs up and re-states material that was already discussed (one example would be Tina performing at the Australian Rugby final in 1993). Furthermore there are numerous POV issues where the author expresses opinions about her performances. Plus several paragraphs begin with variations of "the new year began with..." which makes the article tedious to read. I have a powerful urge to re-write the whole thing, but my lack of knowledge regarding Tina Turner's life and career is holding me back. Sir Smedley (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article sounds like it was written by someone whose life ambition is to chronicle Tina Turner's tour dates. Tedious is the right word for it. I couldn't get through enough to find out if there's any personal-interest info - where does she live now, etc. Does it even mention the Nichiren Buddism that she practices?70.20.197.37 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Juggins

Tina Turner in African American Lives 2 on PBS

According to the DNA test results from the program, Tina Turner is of African, European (around 30%), and Native American (1%) descent. The information currently on the page is not correct. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What African tribe is she related to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TorridTitan (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do remember that her African ancestry could not be exactly pinpointed but it mentioned several locations in Africa. Also, I am not sure where HUD gets that she has any Navajo ancestry as she is from Tennessee and the Navajo live way out West. Unless one of her ancestors had lived in Arizona and later moved to Tennessee... It is highly unlikely she would have any Navajo ancestry. The program stated she was of 30% European ancestry and 1% Native American. Azalea pomp (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tina and Frank Zappa

Tina Turner and "the Ikettes" were on the Frank Zappa albums "Over-nite sensation" and "Apostrophe (')". I have extracted this from another site:

"Tina Turner, born Annie Mae Bullock near Brownsville,TN began singing as a teen, and joined Ike Turner's touring show as an 18-year-old backup vocalist - two years later, Tina was the star of the show. In the Spring of '73, FZ was recording at Bolic Sound in Inglewood, CA - Ike and Tina Turner's studio. FZ: "I wanted to put some back-up singers on...and the road manager...said, 'Well, why don't you just use the Ikettes?' I said, 'I can get the Ikettes?' and he said 'Sure'...Ike Turner insisted that we pay these girls no more than $25 per song, because that's what he paid them...No matter how many hours it took." It's reported that Tina & The Ikettes are credited on the album as "Debbie", "Lynn", and "Susie Glover". Tina Turner provided vocal for Over-Nite Sensation and Apostrophe (')." K, t´hat was intresting....

Typographical error

There is an error that recurs twice in this entry.

Firstly, in the Contents:

"# 10 Retired 

   * 10.1 2001-20003"

Note the extra digit "0" in the date 2003.

This is repeated in the main text of the article, below the heading "Retired":

"2001-20003 (Note the extra digit "0" is here again)

Over the next few years, she continued to occasional make public appearances and to collaborate with other musicians on recording projects. In 2001, Tennessee State Route 19 between Brownsville and Nutbush was named "Tina Turner Highway".[34] In 2003, she teamed up with Phil Collins to record the song "Great Spirits" for the Disney film Brother Bear..."

1% Indian?

The section on Miss Turner's backgrounds states that a DNA test proved her to be 1% Indian, but the link provided doesn't say any such thing and I don't see how that's mathematically possible. Brendan Vox (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC) On the show African American Lives, Dr. Henry Louis Gates showed Ms. Turner that she was only 1% Native American, which could very well be a margin of error and mean that she has no Amerindian ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.177.193 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In reality the odds are that the tests did not show her full native heritage. The tests are limited and are not reliable because they only go through some much of your DNA. Basically your great grandmother could be full blooded Native American but it won't show up in your children. Something they neglected to mention during the show.Mcelite (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that these DNA tests do have a margin of error and Native American ancestry can show up as East Asian ancestry. But a person who truly has a American Indian grandparent generally would show between 15% to 35% Native American or possibly East Asian ancestry. A person can inherit 35% of their DNA admixture from one grandparent and 15% from another grandparent. Now if your great great great grandmother was part Native American, your admixture may not show up in the test. But if one takes this test and it says that you have no Native American ancestry, it is safe to say that it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.177.171 (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tina Turner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Opening assessment

This article currently does not meet the requirements for a good article. At present, it at least fails

  • 1a: Well written: the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
  • 2a: it provides references to all sources of information
  • 2b: at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.

Large blocks of content have been added with little or no citations to support listings of song chart performance, concert attendance and dates, and awards and gold/platinum records, little consistency in style and other issues. The new content consistently refers to her as "Tina", rather than "Tina Turner" or "Turner" as proscribed by guidelines. There are too many errors in linking, the use of quote marks vs. italics, and punctuation to enumerate. The prose is badly in need of copy editing, grammar clean up and POV removal. It simply needs a great deal of attention. I made an attempt to clean part of this up, but frankly, it was overwhelming. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, I see what you mean by errors...!!!

The article doesn't look good at all, looks completely neutral and its grammar is off the mark. No one has cited sources from any of the information. In the "early life" set, I had to change "Turner" to "Bullock" because she wasn't called "Tina Turner" until 1960, really. She was "Little Ann Bullock" when she first started recording and performing in nightclubs with Ike Turner in the late-fifties too. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was a little bit horrified. As it, it does not meet WP:GA standards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've shortened down the paragraphs, put them all in to "Subsequent solo success" because I just felt it didn't need all them paragraphs. Tina's article was really scary-looking. I was actually quite offended looking at the article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work on cutting down the article BrothaTimothy. I did a bit of clean up last night and didn't realize how bad it was until I was in the thick of it. I did manage to correct the linking errors, the title formatting issues (song titles italicized instead of quoted), and the usage of Turner's first name. I also removed a bunch of POV content and added a few references but the article needs many, many more. I may have missed some things because the whole thing was just overwhelming. I think a lot of what is wrong with the article is the fact that most of the content (at least the latter material) is basically just chart rankings. A single is mentioned and then nearly every single chart ranking is mentioned afterward. Aside from being a dull read, this content should probably be put in chart form and 86'ed from the article itself unless the single hit #1. There's also some dead reference links in there that probably should not be used as references to begin with (Turner's now seemingly defunct international fan club site). I think if a few of us work on it and add sources, we can bring it up to speed. Pinkadelica Say it... 02:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good idea. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything Pinkadelica said. Kudos, good work, yay! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead section issues

A few changes were made to the lead of the article in recent weeks that raised some issue with how the lead is cited and worded. An editor placed an uncited paragraph reciting a list of concert points with no citations, and when I looked through the lead, I realized that some of the citations did not in fact support the sentence to which it was included, some of the cites were to a "tinaturner-fanbase" website, and one, which referenced Turner's legs, was cited to the White House, and since the recent revamping of the White House website, was not available for checking. These are the actual changes I made to the lead:

To begin these are the actual changes in text that were made in the revision I made:

1. Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock, November 26, 1939) is an eight time Grammy Award American singer. an American singer and actress. (The wording of "eight time Grammy Award" is discouraged, and in fact, will be challenged in good article and featured article reviews to have a lead sentence using wording like "*** Award-winning". It isn't used in featured articles for an Academy Award winner, nor will it be accepted for a musician/singer. This is basic criteria, and most GA/FA reviewers consider it POV.)

2. She is known worldwide for her energetic stage presence, powerful vocals, ground-breaking concerts, as well as for her long, well-proportioned legs that are considered the most famous in show business. career longevity, and widespread appeal. (One of the citations used to support the last portion of the original statement was from a fanclub site - those are not allowable as reliable sources. The legs description is supported by a dead reference that had no real basis in addressing the fame of a singer's legs, and is not encyclopedic. Again, both issues that are challenged in a GA/FA review. Meanwhile, a lead section is supposed to reflect the rest of the article - her legs are not mentioned at any other point in the article, so it does not support inclusion in the lead. That it was removed was based on the unsupported claim of worldwide fame with what would have to be new personal interpretation of a source no longer available by saying her legs "were noted specifically as she was honored by President George W. Bush." One cannot know if that was what it said, or whether it was part of a supplied press release or someone else's interpretation. That's because the claim cannot be verified anymore. One can't say it was part of his honor, because you cannot check it. The citations I included for the two portions I included in the sentence are actually supported by reliable sources.)

3. Turner's world tour Break Every Rule Tour had record breaking ticket sales and was attended by over four million fans. Turner also beat out The Rolling Stones by touring Europe during her sold out Foreign Affair Tour in 1990 and playing to four million people in just six months. Her 1996 Wildest Dreams Tour was performed to 3.5 million fans. In the year 2000 she launched her Twenty Four Seven Tour that packed stadiums all over the world, it was the highest grossing tour of the year, and is the 5th biggest grossing tour in America ever.

This section was struck because it is not sourced in the lead. The concerts are covered, with all of these facts, in the body of the article, and meanwhile, the basics of this are covered more generally in the preceeding paragraph. Also, this borders on peacockery.

Citations that were updated or removed were because they were not reliable, duplicated at least once at the end of one sentence. The actual citations were updated where necessary, removed from statements which weren't supported by the cites stuck in, and a couple were removed because they were essentially from the same press release from sites mirroring the original. Appropriate citations were combined.

An editor, who hasn't previously worked on cleaning the mess that existed last fall and threatened the GA status has reverted this section more than once, removing all these updates and corrections to incorrect citations. It would be helpful for others to comment on this. The difference between the lead changes can be seen here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wildhartlivie's comments, but despite this, I think the lede section isn't what it could be. It's all praise, and I don't deny Turner has earned every bit of it, but there's no mention of the real hardships she dealt with - leaving her marriage with nothing and building an astonishing career, for example. It's all about her awards, her status etc etc. I think it sells Turner short. I'm glad the "award-wining" thing is gone from the first sentence. WP:MOSBIO advocates that the first sentence is to establish identity and notability. Turner is notable as a singer and actor. She's not specifically notable as a multiple Grammy Award winner. This is not what defines her. Further, she has won a multitude of awards, and it's not appropriate to single out the Grammy as the ultimate prize. It may or may not be the thing she values most, or the world values most, but that's not for us to say. It's one of many awards.
I do not like at all - "Turner has been often referred as "the truest rock diva of all,"[15] "soul's first real diva,"[16] "The most dynamic female soul singer in the history of the music,"[17] and "one of soul music's most incendiary performers."[3][16]" It's overkill. She hasn't often been referred to as these particular quotes. She's often - as all successful entertainers are - spoken of in glowing terms and with praise. You could pick a few quotes about any performer and stick them in the the lede sections of their articles, without context. It's so easy to do as to render them meaningless. A balanced discussion in the article would be fine, but this looks a bit like a press release. It's not part of a summary from the article itself, and that is the main obective of the lede section - to summarize the article. Rossrs (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now the lead sentence for Tina Turner, one of the most honored, successful, and popular recording artists of all times says:

  • "Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock, November 26, 1939) is an American singer and actress."

This is an awful lead sentence. It tells you the bare minimum about her or her career, and it needs to be fixed. This intro sentence could be used for every contestant on this season's American Idol. It doesn't tell you anything significant or meaningful or important or notable, other than her profession. It's crap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is the whole point - it's not meant to tell anything more than the very basics. It's not crap. It's accurate, it's specific and it complies with WP:MOSBIO and with the standards that are applied in WP:GA and WP:FA reviews. Describing her as an icon in the first sentence is unacceptable, and it's more awful than mere awful. It's excrutiating. It's an unsupported point of view. It's not the first thing that must be said about her as part of a defining statement. All that is needed is who she is and what she does. Simple. "Icon" does not belong anywhere, let alone in the first sentence. Please have a look at some other Wikipedia:Featured articles, such as :
Michael Jackson - "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman."
Janet Jackson - "Janet Damita Jo Jackson (born May 16, 1966) is an American recording artist and entertainer."
Kylie Minogue - "Kylie Ann Minogue, OBE, (born 28 May 1968), is an Australian pop singer-songwriter and occasional actress."
Mariah Carey - "Mariah Carey (born March 27, 1970) is an American singer-songwriter, record producer and actress. "
Celine Dion - "Céline Marie Claudette Dion, CC, OQ ( /seɪlɪn dɪɒn/ (help·info)) (born March 30, 1968 in Charlemagne, Quebec) is a Canadian singer, songwriter, and actress."
Kate Bush - "Kate Bush (born Catherine Bush on 30 July 1958) is an English singer-songwriter, musician and record producer."
John Mayer - "John Clayton Mayer (pronounced /ˈmeɪ.ər/ MAY-ər;[1] born October 16, 1977) is an American musician. "
Gwen Stefani - "Gwen Renée Stefani (pronounced /ˈgwɛn stɛˈfɑːni/;[2] born October 3, 1969) is an American recording artist and fashion designer. "
Alison Krauss - "Alison Krauss[1] (born July 23, 1971[2] in Decatur, Illinois) is an American bluegrass-country singer and fiddler. "
Frank Zappa - "Frank Vincent Zappa[1] (December 21, 1940 – December 4, 1993) was an American composer, electric guitarist, record producer, and film director."
If I can interject here just to point out that many of these leads are also crap. Just to give a few examples, Gwen Stefani's doesn't even mention the style of music she performs. Zappa's doesn't hint at his significance. Mayer's is utterly worthless and doesn't even mention that he's a songwriter. Many of them are also misleading and inaccurate. Celine Dion is an actress? Kate Bush is a record producer? Janet Jackson's lead doesn't even mention her acting, when in fact she has actually done some. Michael Jackson is a businessman? Those leads are HORRIFIC!!! They need to be fixed. Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass. This is a classic case of "other stuff exists", as properly applied. Just because other articles have crappy leads doesn't mean this one has to be the same way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I was not discussing the lede section. I was discussing the format of the the opening sentence not the content. These are not "GA"s. They are Wikipedia:Featured articles that have been scrutinised by numerous editors. If I am to be believed ???????????? Are you serious? Click on the star icon at the top of the screen on each of those articles. Please read through some Wikipedia policies so you know what you're talking about, and don't feel the need to dismiss everything else as crap. When the "other stuff exists" happens to be the established set of criteria, I will point you towards it. This is the format to follow. You've been here less than a month by your user page - take some time to check policies and guidelines before you start telling everyone else how they should be doing things. You could even familiarize yourself with some of the specifics, Kate Bush, for example has produced almost all her recordings, but that's beside the point. I don't even care if those other articles are accurate as that is not the point I was making - I was drawing your attention to the format of the first sentence. Your lede section for Tina Turner looks like it came straight from her promoter. It's not an appropriate tone. Rossrs (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You should worry less about the format and more about the contact. Misleading, inaccurate, and improperly weighted descriptions in the first sentence of articles is a very bad sign as far as quality control goes. Saying someone produces their own records is different from being a record producer, don't you think? If I self-publish a couple books, am I a book publisher? What business is MJ in? YIKES!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"improperly weighted descriptions in the first sentence of articles is a very bad sign as far as quality control goes" - 100% agree, and on that basis, the "icon" statement needs to go. Rossrs (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Just the cold, hard facts. I hope that is enough to demonstrate that by featured article standards, which are the standards we should generally be aiming for, the opening sentence is a very basic introduction, devoid of hyperbole. Please don't lose sight of the fact that we are not discussing the relative merits or accomplishments of specific artists, per the Quincy Jones comments below, rather establishing a long-held writing convention. Having said that, the people listed above as the subject of featured articles, are each notable in his or her own sphere, and each article could be subject to heralding their achievements in the first sentence - but we don't do that. It's nothing personal and is no disrespect to Turner's achievements. Your recent edits are glorifying Tina Turner, but they're not in step with Wikipedia's general method of conveying information. Rossrs (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
So this is about whether or not "Grammy Award-winning singer and actress" should be in the lede, correct? I've looked over a few more articles on musicians and I think the best example to go by is Quincy Jones. Though not a singer, Jones has an incredibly varied and long career in music, television and film and has won 27 Grammys in total. The lede section of his article does not state that he is Grammy Award winning yet the following sentence does state this fact (same as the current state of the Turner article). There's a few more examples such as Georg Solti who has won 38 Grammys (the most won ever), U2 who have won 22 Grammys and Michael Jackson who has won 13. None of the articles on these obviously accomplished musicians have the phrase "Grammy Award winning" in their ledes. An artist's achievements don't have to be noted in the very first lede sentence and mentioning them second sentence doesn't somehow diminish their accomplishments. We have an entire lede to establish the person or persons accomplishments and why they are notable. I do happen to be a fan of Turner's, but at the same time, this isn't the venue to celebrate her greatness and talent. Her accomplishments and awards can stand on their own merit and we can do without the POV which I personally know is overdone in this particular article from first hand experience. Pinkadelica Say it... 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Quincy Jones is a peon compared to Tina. He should not be mentioned in the same sentence with her.
Don't worry, I reorganized and made the basic improvements that were needed in the introduction. Now some of the details need to be relocated to the appropriate sections and summarized in the introduction. Her tour history, for example, should be described instead of detailing her latest tour. Other specific content should also be relocated to the appropriate section and generalized in the introduction. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Saying that Jones is a peon compare to Turner is your POV, not a fact. The fact of the matter remains that both are accomplished in their chosen fields and Jones himself (despite your opinion on him) has won 19 more Grammys than Turner and that fact is still not mentioned in his article lede. That was actually the point of the examples, not a comparison of two's musical talents and who is superior. As for the current version of the article, saying the Turner is an icon without providing a reliable source to back up that claim is just begging for a removal. Claims like that need to be backed up and seeing as this is a BLP, I'd say a source is needed ASAP. I'm already tiring of this back and forth and since I see the POV is overwhelming here, I'll let others weigh in to determine the most neutral wording needed. Pinkadelica Say it... 07:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The most neutral wording for the first sentence - "Tina Turner (born Anna Mae Bullock, November 26, 1939) is an American singer and actress." - The End.
The rest of the lede section - I suggest a summary of the article in line with WP:LEAD. Not a fanfare to precede it, which is all we currently have. That would be nice. Rossrs (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The intro summarizes the key points of the article. The lead does the same for the introduction. You don't think she is an icon? She is cited all through the article as being an icon, for example being noted as the "Queen of Rock and Roll" and being one of the most succesful singers. She's a legend. Stop taking notable and clearly worded content out in favor of some kind of formulaic wording that applies to every single musician in the world. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform people, not bore them to death with generalizations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, the intro does not summarize the article. A summary would take the key points from the article and condense them into a format that conveys essentially the same information in an abbreviated form. The lead is to introduce the article, but it should also stand alone. If a person had never heard of Tina Turner and all they read was the lead - does it tell her story? Does it accurately reflect the article that follows? No, it doesn't. The lede is currently a list of her achievements, and no matter how outstanding her achievements are, that is not a summary of the entire article. Whether or not I believe Tina is an icon or a legend is of no relevance. Personally, by my own definition, I believe she is, but presented in this format it's giving it as a fact and as an absolute. It's not. A lot of people have said things about her, some of it is a rehashing of press releases and fan magazines, some of it is accurate. It all gets mixed together and comes out as "legend" or "icon". These words are intangible and difficult to define and even more difficult to source. They are not based in fact, but in interpretation. They mean different things to different people. From an encylopedic point of view, we aim to present facts in a neutral tone to inform people, not to help them make up their minds about a subject. It's covered in WP:NPOV. The "formulaic wording" you refer to is the basic skeleton on which the article and especially the lede, is built. It doesn't have to be dry and uninteresting, and if the story is well told it can be engaging and appealing without having to resort to series of meaningless or undefined catchphrases, but we must ensure that a particular article doesn't stand out as conveying a stronger tone than other similar articles. Ultimately, all Wikipedia articles should convey a similarly detached tone, without missing any important elements. You might push Tina forward as a legend, someone else might do the same for John Lennon, someone else might do the same for Madonna, someone else might do the same for Bing Crosby. Everyone can make a case for the artist that they care about, but that effort reduces the project potentially to a series of fansites. There are other venues that do that. We don't. Tina's story is very interesting and compelling and her achievements are amazing. That is not conveyed in the lede. It's all about this superlative and that superlative and this acclaim and that acclaim. Sorry, but that's extremely boring and it sells Tina short. It tells nothing about her, just the big fuss that has been made of her. If you are writing this from the point of view of being a fan paying homage to an idol, it may result in something that is not objective. Rossrs (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I am just flabbergasted. Featured and good articles are crap? "Quincy Jones is a peon compared to Tina"? A section about awards is plopped into the middle of an article written in chronological order and made the main section for the sub-sections of "Ike's death" and "Return to the stage"? And the introduction has now been turned into a publicist's dream. It has little to nothing to do with the actual article itself and is a fanpage summary. I give up. Perhaps it should now just be submitted for delisting because it comes nowhere near a good article anymore. How many good or featured articles have you written, ChildofMidnight? Between Rossrs and I, there are at least seven featured articles and a good article. This is the goal for each and every article on Wikipedia. That is done by following policy and guidelines and meeting the criteria laid out for that status. So far, I've been lectured by you on POV, finding references and what, in your opinion, qualifies as journalistic good and been demeaned regarding my knowledge of what Wikipedia considers acceptable. This article is supposed to reflect the person and career of Tina Turner, not the awards and achievements of her. Your viewpoint has been challenged directly by three different editors in terms of content. Her legs are not nearly as important as how this woman rebuilt her life and career following a bad marriage, abuse and being reduced to broke and having no career. I'm sorry you can't make those distinctions, and I'm also sorry that you don't realize that your interpretation of what is important for the lead and sourcing does not necessarily reflect the criteria laid out to meet the status that this article once held. One of your points insisted that winning 8 Grammy Awards should be in the lead sentence, now you've removed it from the lead entirely. I'm flabbergasted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to tell you that as long as this article is accurate, clearly written and well organized, I could care less whether it has a star in the upper right-hand corner and neither does anyone using it for information on Tina Turner. I agree with you that the content you mention should be added to the introduction. I hope you'll do so. Adding good content, improving organization, copy-editing, and improving citations is helpful, making sure every article on musicians starts with identical wording? Not so much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone is a musician tells you very little. My neighbor bill is a musician. Saying someone is an icon, when it's well established and well supported by article content is far more accurate and informative. Has anyone worked on fixing the lead sentences from other articles that were listed here? They are terrible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take that complaint up with the people who run WP:FA and WP:GA, since that would be your own special little point of view. I'd also suggest you read WP:WEASEL so that you can familiarize yourself with what constitutes a weasel word. Heading a section that covers the last few years in someone's career as "Later years" or "Recent years" has nothing to do with "weasel" words or with POV. If I recall correctly, and I do, your first suggestion for that section was "Mature Tina". I'd suggest, if you want to call Turner an icon, then you come up with some reliable sources that call her that. It is invalid to say that anyone is an icon based on article content. Just puffing up the lead with more superlatives that are essentially peacockery takes this article further out of compliance with GA criteria than it was before you added your fine touch to it. Your opinion has been countered by three different editors so far and yet you persevere in pushing your point of view of what a good or featured article should be and your version of the lead. Maybe you should check into working for a publicity firm, because that is all the lead now is. I am going to open a wiki-wide request for comments because there is no discussing this with you, you view the article from a fanboy viewpoint, the other editors here are trying to work toward returning this to GA status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look icon up in a dictionary or do a Wikipedia search for the term, you will see it is accurate and informative. Of course it's also supported by loads of reliable sources which you are welcome to consult over at google news. Information in introductions isn't usually cited unless it's controversial.
"Later years" isn't informative and is misleading. What are later years? When does that period start? When is it over? What are you going to call her years after these? It's like saying nothing but that she's a singer or musician in the lead sentence. It's generalized gobbledy gook. It also has a hint of age discrimination. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The word "icon" was put into the article by you. When introducing something like that, it is incumbent upon the person who added it to provide and include supporting references. Don't add something to an article and then suggest to others that they go look up the references to support your addition. That is poor editing. Calling someone an icon is a controversial addition when it's added without supporting specific citations. If you'd bother to check, which you didn't, it was changed from "Later years" to "Recent years". And yes, the lead sentence is supposed to reflect specifically what makes the person notable. Period. However, it is not gobbledy gook. Age discrimination would be your point of view again. An article about someone whose body of work covers 40 years is going to have a hint of an early period of work, a middle period of work, and a later period of work. There's nothing discriminatory in pointing out work later in a person's career. Meanwhile, you've conveyed your opinion of FA and GA articles quite well, as I said, and the changes you keep sticking into the article reflect your disdain for them by taking the article further away from those standards than near them. Take it up with the people who oversee WP:GA and WP:FA. This isn't a fan magazine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's not play games. If you want to dispute the word icon please say so and state why you don't think she's an icon. Introductions don't normally have citations because they describe the basics about the subject by way of introduction. I haven't taken issue with any GA or FA standards, I just pointed out the flaws in the examples and other stuff exists argument that was presented to me. No one disagreed or presented a counter argument, presumably because they recognize those leads suck. Accuracy, clear language, and good organization are critical to writing a good article. If you read the wp:lead section it explains what should be in the first section and the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Three people have commented on the inappropriateness of a term such as "icon" in an encyclopedic context, so consider it disputed. You are taking the view that it is now up to us to say why Tina is not an icon, which is a different point. It's probably a reasonable word to use in other contexts. Anyone wanting to whip up interest in Tina for any reason could use the word with justification. We're supposed to be able to rise above the hoopla. As for your comments about 'other stuff exists' - I did comment on that. The fact that I didn't go through each article and defend the content, is not because I "recognize those leads suck', but because I was commenting on the format rather than the content - a view you suggested I need to get past, even though that was specifically the point I thought we were discussing. Please don't take my unwillingness to get bogged down into an analysis of the content of any of the other articles, as in any way supporting your viewpoint, because that's not the case. Rossrs (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Rossrs disputed the use of the unreferenced word "icon" two days ago, and again here. Pinkadelica disputed the use of the word "icon" here. No one at any time has said whether or not they think she is, everyone has disputed the use of it in the absence of specific citations that support the word. This is a fundamental tenet on Wikipedia, and if you cannot understand that, I don't really know how to explain it any further. It has to be supported by reliable sources - ones that an editor put in to support what that editor is claiming. The lead most certainly is going to needs sourcing when you put in content that is not supported in the rest of the article. And saying "everything in the article supports that" is not sufficient. You are then taking the rest of the article and synthesizing a conclusion from it that is not even addressed in the article. WP:LEAD also says While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.
I know full well what the lead section is supposed to say. So do Rossrs and Pinkadelica. We have all said, since you started editing the lead, that it is not in compliance with what a lead is supposed to contain. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead you rewrote does not do that. Instead, it is a press release, without context or content that reflects the article. Yet you continued to revise it, despite the objections here. You have thrown the "other stuff exists" argument up several times, and yes, you mostly certainly did denigrate the FA and GA standards, several times. The "other stuff that exists" were examples of featured and good articles and I believe your description was "crap". The problem with that is, that particular "other stuff that exists" is the goal for every article - meeting all the criteria and being approved by GA/FA reviewers. It's just that simple. And it is not anyone else's job to go find sources for claims that you put in the article. It is yours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are the Google News results for "Tina Turner icon" [1]. Feel free to use as many of the articles that refer to her that way as you need. I would also like to point out that the word icon has a clear and distinct meaning, and its use is well established by this article's contents. A lead sentence should describe the key significance of the article subject, as icon does in this case. If you have a better word to use you should suggest it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would you post that here and suggest that someone else besides the person who used the word - you - put in a cite? This is pointless. You put in the word, it is incumbent upon you to add sourcing for it. In the absence of that, I will remove it as unsourced synthesis. The rest of the article cannot be source for an uncited conclusion. It is synthesis, your conclusion based on other content. If you don't care to support your claim, then it apparently is meaningless. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting - "Lindsay Lohan icon" gets more google hits [2] (1870) than "Tina Turner icon" (1800) . Meanwhile Madonna gets considerably more hits [3] (10900) than either Turner or Lohan and we manage not to mention it in her article, despite the fact that several sources with "icon" in the title are cited in her article. Paula Abdul even gets quite a few hits. How many articles are we going to add this to? For the record, I dispute the use of the word with or without a source, because sources are a dime a dozen, and could be used with equal justification to add the same terminology to enough celebrity articles as to render it completely devoid of meaning. We can find a source to say just about anything we want to. It doesn't give it meaning, just because we can link to a website who does not adhere to the level of neutrality that we aim to. The ability to provide a source, even a reliable one, does not nullify other Wikipedia policies. Rossrs (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight, I've looked back through at your contribution history and you have never used an edit summary like "add references for content. you can do this too: googlenews.com." After your suggestion that I keep my edit summaries civil, I would extend the same to you. This would follow in the wake of your continued insistence that someone else add references from google search pages that you posted above. I realize you are newer here, and don't appear to know proper reference formatting, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], but you can learn how to properly format references at WP:REFB. Because guidelines for GA and FA require a consistent use of formatting style, will you please fix the references you added to the article using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}? Meanwhile, since you haven't hesitated to remove content that you believe needs a reference in other articles that don't even have WP:BLP issues, [10], [11] and none have been added for the "icon" inclusion that three separate editors have challenged, it is being removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous ongoing debate I've ever come across on a talk page. Considering User:ChildofMidnight's circular arguments are beginning to spill over to talk:Michael Jackson, I'd suggest bringing this up to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts would also be an appropriate place to start. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree this is totally ridiculous, I can't imagine a serious argument that Tina Turner isn't an icon. It also seems preposterous that anyone would argue that her article should start with the same first sentence as one for an American Idol contestant or some aspiring star with a new record deal. It's absurd is what it is. I'm sorry I haven't had more time to devote to the discussion here of why irrelevancies should be kept out of lead sentences while the most significant and accurate descriptors should be included, but I've had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!) and I've been working on other projects. I hope you'll all join me in trying to make the encyclopedia the best possible. Please read wp:lead so we're all on the same page as far as policy goes. If an RfC or other outside involvement is necessary to get this issue resolved, that is certainly welcome development. I can't do all the work myself after all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You have completely ignored conventional use of every wikipedia policy mentioned so far, including wp:lead. Any RfC or alert would be brought to this article (and others) specifically concerning your disregard for policy and purposefully disrupting Wikipedia:Consensus. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the use of the word "icon" again from the lead sentence. There is a great difference is saying that someone has been described as an icon, and conferring the title of icon ourselves. If we call her an icon, it doesn't matter if there are 100 sources cited, they are still 100 opinions. If it's so important, and I really don't think it is, the way to go would be to expand the article body to include balanced criticism and if a number of notable commentators have called her an icon, that could be part of the criticism, but it's excessive to just attach the label to her ourselves, in the lead sentence, without context or clarification. This has been discussed in detail and the consensus is against it. Rossrs (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite needs to be fixed(?)

Some info on Turner's ancestry is cited to http://www.pbs.org/previews/aalives2/

At least some of the info so cited appears not to be available at this link. (For example, "the results of a DNA test featured on African American Lives 2 showed Bullock [aka Tina Turner] was only 1% Native American." -- I haven't been able to find that info on that website.)

I think that we should have a better/different cite for this info, or that we should cite this PBS program in a different format (i.e., not by linking to its web page.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

35 Years

In the section marital problems it says she left Ike in 1976, but the statement issued (in 2007) says she had no contact with him for 35 years (citation provided and checks out). Assuming the last time she had contact was when she left him 1976 + 35 = 2011. Is this an error in the statement?--kelapstick (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It may have been an error in the statement from the spokesperson, but the date she left Ike is correct here. I found a different source that actually says "in more than 30 years" and I will replace it in the article. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section

A lot of what clutters the leads of global superstars is solved by creating a proper legacy section. See Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, R.E.M. and Sex Pistols. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I have some major concerns with the tone and content of the lead section. Except for the paragraph covering Turner's film roles, the rest of the lead does not summarize the rest of the article and primarily consists of how many different ways can be found to say how great she is. It does not cover at all the decline of her career, the marital problems that led to the decline, her autobiography, or even mention the meteoric return to stardom. While the article is fairly well organized, the lead does not seem to be so, and actually does not seem to fit in with the rest of the article. In my opinion, that plus the unreferenced personal life section jeopardise the good article status seriously and is in serious need of attention before it is demoted. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Much of the article content is about just how big a deal she is, so much of that content is appropriate, although some reqording or tweaks might be appropriate. I have suggested that a couple sentences noting the other issues be added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I reorganized a bit and I think the last two paragraphs of the introduction can be merged. The second one paragraph should be expanded and probably split up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Hi there. In preparing for a possibly RfA candidacy and I saw someone mention the "icon" dispute I had here a while back. I reviewed my contributions, and while I meant well, I think some of my language more crass and unhelpful then I had intended. So I just wanted to apologize to those involved. The only thing crappy was my behavior. Have a nice weekend folks, and sorry about that. I will do better. Oh, and I still think the first sentence should note her special status and achievements as a musician and not just use wording standard for any musician and singer. :) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Golden Globe nomination for songwriters of one of Tina's songs

...does not need to go in the lead section. The lead is supposed to a summary of the article, and to keep it succinct it should focus only on Tina Turner. If there are any interesting side-issues they can be included in the article, but should not go in the lead where they may create an impression of WP:UNDUE weight. The Golden Globe nomination for "We Don't Need Another Hero" is notable and significant for the songwriters as the award is for them, but Turner was the performer. She sold the song and made it popular, but the award was never going to be for her. I don't see any logic in making a special mention about an award that she couldn't win, especially when the many awards and nominations that were in fact hers have not been mentioned. I've removed this information twice, and have given reasons in my edit summaries. If there's disagreement, this needs to be discussed. "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." If my edit is being reverted, I'd like the courtesy of being told why. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Native American heritage

Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) has engaged in an edit war (minor at this point; Wildhartlivie has not violated 3RR) by repeatedly restoring categories indicating that Turner has Native American ancestry. I have found nothing in the article or the sources to confirm this. I have asked Wildhartlivie to provide statements here from a reliable source to confirm that Turner has Native American heritage. If anyone else has good information please let us know. I will wait a couple of days before reverting. Thanks. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a source that confirms that she does have Native American ancestry through a DNA test. How much ancestry we do not know because as of now genetic testing isn't completely accurate because the testing excludes most of your ancestors. However, she was fortunate that they found a little because she always believed to have Native American heritage.Mcelite (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Which source are you referring to? 71.77.20.26 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
here's two sources...i'm rushing today so i hope you can connect the dots.Bullock, Zelma. (1993). Tina Turner: Girl from Nutbush. [video]. Strand Video Entertainment and [12] Mcelite (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
DNA TEST SHOWS SHE'S ONLY 1% NATIVE AMERICAN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh7on-0EHNU In fact it was white not native that she had--76.213.233.191 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
or rather, Youtube can be a reliable source, if a reliable agency creates a reliable channel - for example [13], which is a video on a local authority Youtube channel. However, the video that 71.77 wants to use is not reliable - no idea where it comes from, who made it, who is verifying the information on it etc etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in lead section

"Allegations of spousal abuse following her split with Turner in 1977 arose with the publication of her autobiography I, Tina."

My first difficulty is that I couldn't easily tell who abused whom. After I got that sorted out with the help of information farther down the article, it occurred to me that the sentence in question has another problem. It's stated that these "allegations...arose with the publication of her autobiography...." How did they arise? Were they made in the autobiography or in some other way?

Citroënist (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reworded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

She is a Nichiren Buddhist. Is she a member of Soka Gakkai?

I think there should be greater emphasis on her faith and her importance. I will be happy to make additions. Does anyone know if she is a member of Soka Gakkai?--DCX (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Several articles I have read online, including this one http://buddhism.about.com/od/nichirenbuddhism/a/sokagakkai.htm states she is a member of SGI. I am not sure they are reputable or what their source is. anyone have any opinions?--DCX (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, she is not a member of Soka Gakkai. Nichiren Buddhists separated themselves from Soka Gakkai I think due to political reasons. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ike's Death

I think we should change the headline. Ike's death sounds a little bit strange to me. Wen I read this headline it feels like I am close to him. It's personal because we use his first name and no his surename. What do you think about changing it to "Ike Turners Death" ?? Just a little thought of me...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.2.88 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

"With the publication of her autobiography came claims of spouse abuse against Ike Turner" sounds like she was accused of abusing Ike (and that said accusations arose after her book).

Rewrite, someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.97.214 (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fan Page

Why does this entire article read like a fan page? Everything Tina Turner did was either a major success, an international smash, or people were forced to face their stupidity on why they did not sign her or why they were not doing something for her. She emabrked on more hugely successful tours than I could count in the article. And every single that became a hit was a smash. But all her shortcomings are glossed over, like several albums not attaining gold status; single that only reached the bottom reaches of the chart or did not chart at all, are somehow read like they were a hit. And 'Private Dancer" selling 20 million worldwide?! That album sold 11 million worldwide. Five million of those copies were in the US, the other six million copies were worldwide. She would have had to sold 15 million copies outside the US for it to be at 20 million, and that didn't happen. And whenever something's changed to make it accurate, someone (a fan) goes in an reverts it back. I like Tina Turner, but come on. This article needs a major reworking and more objective views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Birth year

There is a minor revert war going on about what year Turner was born right now. There is disagreement between sources as to when she was born.

Most of the references show a 1939 birth year. ~~ GB fan ~~ 08:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wigs? Hair Loss?

Why is there no mention of how she lost her hair? Her wigs are a very big part of her persona and stage-identity...so it should be mentioned how she lost her hair and now wears outrageous wigs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Up dated the record sales

I have updated the record sales to what the souces say, all of the 3 sources say that Tina's record sales (albuns+singles) are around 180-200 Million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentTroll (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the only one that states the 200 million is this here, which speaks of album sales only, and that is quite unrealistic when one looks at Tina Tunrner's certified sales. It's even doubtable if Turner could have sold 180 million albums, singles, videos, which again is disagreed with her certified sales. But the latter is more logical than the former. I have removed the source which states 200 million album sales only, the work of which was not even by Reuters, but by www.aeglive.com. We now have two sources both of which claim 180 million records, meaning singles, albums, videos.--Harout72 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Tina.Orlando2008.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tina.Orlando2008.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Names

I've edited the names in the article, for clarity. The use of the name Bullock is quite appropriate in the sections about her early life, except where it causes confusion with other members of her birth family, in which case it's appropriate to use the name Anna. It's not appropriate to use the name Bullock in talking about her later professional career with Ike Turner, when she was known as Tina Turner, but to use the name "Turner" can also cause confusion in some contexts - so, in those cases, it's better to use "Tina" or "she", to avoid any confusion with Ike. It's one of those cases where the article cannot be completely consistent, because the name by which she is known has changed over her lifetime. Anyone reading the article will understand that the name by which she was known changed from Anna Mae Bullock to Tina Turner, and all the article has to do is be clear, so that the reader knows who is being discussed in any particular sentence or paragraph. We shouldn't try to impose consistency by insisting on using the name "Bullock", or any other name, throughout the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had to do it again. It is much clearer, in talking about her early life, to refer to her as "Anna" or "she" - the gross over-use of the surname "Bullock" is confusing, in that it could refer to her sister rather than her, and appears to be done for either humorous or derogatory effect - which is either inappropriate, non-neutral, or both. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead section reads too much like POV in some areas

I saw the earlier argument in here about how the lead section had seem too much like a personal point of view than a [[14]]. Plus I think for a section and the bodies of the page to make sense, you have to make sure points in the lead section are also followed by what's said in the following other sections of the page. What y'all feel? Think this need editing or is it good on its own? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tina_Turner/Archive_2&oldid=1137255637"