Jump to content

Talk:Olivia Newton-John

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for comment

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There is a consensus to describe Olivia Newton-John as both British and Australian. There is not a strong consensus as to whether the hyphenated form should be used or "British and Australian" written out, but there is rough consensus that the latter conforms with the project-wide policy, or no particular policy-based rebuttal to this form. While a number of participants who originally suggested British-Australian was the best term, changed their mind to British and Australian given the MOS:NATIONALITY text that was quoted, there was still a rough split between those that supported British and Australian and those that supported British-Australian; however, there is a consensus that both nationalities should appear in the description of Olivia Newton-John and no compelling reason why the MOS should be deviated from in this instance. This upholds the previous RFC consensus, clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. This also offers a rough consensus for the specific phrasing "British and Australian" given the policy-based argument that this is consistent with its guideline. Andre🚐 01:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead of Olivia Newton-John, should we describe her as British born Australian or British-Australian?

This follows from a previous RFC which closed with the statement "There is a clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. There is a bit less of a consensus as to which specific terminology to use..."

The aim of this RFC is to find consensus for which terminology to use.

Polyamorph (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. I was really seeking examples from outside the obscure and arcane world of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • British born Australian It should come down to a matter of facts, not an opinion, that can be swayed by geological bias. It is a fact that Olivia Newton--John stated in an interview, that she considers her self Australian and didn't mention Britain. That's what matters and her wishes should be respected. The fact her being born in Britain is covered in the [British] born Australian part. It's the best compromise. I also think that if a person wishes to be known from a particular country and someone goes against those wishes and labels them from somewhere else, that is extremely disrespectful and rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.97.4 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 101.176.97.4 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To this Australian it seems quite inelegant. In my over 70 years, I cannot recall anyone ever being described that way. It seems clumsily unnatural. Have YOU ever heard anyone described that way? Or as Australian-British? Serious question. (And I don't mean in Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
difficult editing on my phone, but since you ask The writer is ...a dual British-Australian citizen, Two British-Australian women..., same story, Jo Dyer ... realised she might be a dual British-Australian citizen. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's specifically talking about citizenship, not what we're discussing here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You are suggesting the term is made up by wikipedian's. It is term that is used to describe nationality which is precisely what we are discussing Polyamorph (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's nationality you want to describe, you say "She has joint Australian and British citizenship." HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is drifting into the realms of the previous RFC, which was already decided. Polyamorph (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're a bit arrogant aren't you. What describing her nationality as British means it's elegant. But describing her nationality as purely Australian isn't. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please retract your personal attack. See WP:NPA.Polyamorph (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ad hominem attack if there is substance, that's a fallacy. They were being arrogant. So what I said is accurate. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the definition of an ad hominem attack nor the policy at WP:NPA have anything to do with whether you think the attack is valid. General Ization Talk 03:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ANI thread opened. Polyamorph (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British-Australian seems most apt. Ortizesp (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me. See my comments immediately above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does it "accurately" mean? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You must have seen the essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process by now. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.Comment Isn't this an ENGVAR issue? As the article is written in Australian English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Australians don’t sometimes hyphenate dual nationalities? That seems implausible. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I haven't even given an opinion don't you think that you reading more into my statement than seems plausible? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a question, and then also gave my opinion about the answer to the question. Perhaps you could answer the question instead of getting defensive about it and making personal comments, per WP:AGF, etc.? (Or, if you think my question doesn't have anything to do with your comment, you could consider the possibility that your comment may not have been completely clear.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) [<- different IP address, same human being] 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if this was an ENGVAR issue, if you can't understand that then that might be your issue. You asked me a deliberately pointy question in relation to my original question, and it got the reply it deserved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I did not ask you a deliberately pointy question: "deliberately pointy" is you reading into my state of mind about the point of my question. In fact, I asked you a very straightforward question, specifically because I did not want to assume something that was not clear from your comment. So I will ask again (and please try this time to apply WP:AGF and imagine that when I say this is a straightforward direct question, that it is a straightforward direct question): do you think that Australians don't ever hyphenate dual nationalities? Here are some possible answers: "No, I believe that Australians routinely hyphenate dual nationalities" "No, I think that Australians sometimes hyphenate dual nationalities" "Yes, I don't think Australians ever hyphenate any dual nationalities, that was the reason I made my comment" "I don't have any idea if Australians hyphenate dual nationalities, that was the reason I made my comment".
BTW the original source of confusion is that you say "I asked if this was an ENGVAR issue", but your original construction "Isn't this an ENGVAR issue?" is a formulation that (at least in my dialect of English) tends to presuppose an affirmative answer. If only you had considered the possibility of unclarity in your own comment before directing a bunch of defensive hostility at me (i.e., if you had engaged in basic WP:AGF), this conversation would have been much more pleasant and constructive all around. Anyhow, towards that end, I've now spent exactly 2 minutes doing research and I conclude that Australians seem to sometimes hyphenate dual nationalities: [1], [2]. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is there something in the water? I'd never have started this RFC, on the request of a currently blocked IP, if I knew it would breed such hostility. And im talking to you 177.55, there was absolutely nothing wrong with ActivelyDisinterested's question. Please be kind. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
???? I didn't say there was anything wrong with their question. They, on the other hand, have been quite aggressive in response to my question (with which there was also nothing wrong). 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a roller coaster ride of a response to innocuous ENGVAR question. Nemov (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times. General Ization Talk 16:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But, setting aside the weird hostility towards my request for clarification, I think we can conclude that the answer to the original question is "no, it's not an ENGVAR issue" since I was able in a couple minutes of searching to pull up some examples of professional Aus-dialect writing that use hyphenated nationalities (as in my post of 15:57, 16 December 2022 UTC). 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you could have been a little better at assuming good faith, but regardless, the ride has finished, please make sure you gather all your personal belongings before exiting the ride. Polyamorph (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • British-Australian: Quite simply makes the most sense and describes the subject the best (FWIW, I'm Australian). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    British-born Australian: As the best fit to MOS:NATIONALITY, besides British and Australian, which seems a bit awkward and clunky. British-born Australian also has the advantage of British-Australian in that it is implied that the Australian part of the subjects identity has more importance than the British part here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British-born Australian or British-Australian dual citizen if must. The trouble with Nationality-Nationality formats is that it is never clear whether the term refers to dual citizensip, or Ethnicity-Nationality (African-American, like Obama, Italian-American like De Niro) or - more old-fashioned but still used - mixed heritage ie Paternal Nationality-Maternal Nationality. Unless one is familiar with 'local' national use, there is too much room for ambiguity and being clear adds one extra word here. Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • British-Australian: Most sensible. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • British–Australian: It's concise and will let the reader know she had both nationalities. Songwaters (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British and Australian if we're talking about citizenship—MOS:NATIONALITY. If ethnicity is the concern, British-Australian would perhaps be appropriate. However, Olivia herself said that she was Australian and "proud to be recognized" by the UK. From those statements, it would seem that she didn't consider "British" equal with "Australian." So again, my vote is for British and Australian with British-born Australian being the next best option (note the hyphen in "British-born"). Scapulus (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC-7)
  • Comment Scapulus's comment about MOS:NATIONALITY changed my mind and apparently influenced Polyamorph as well. The closing editor should note that this follows the MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Nemov (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I reviewed this discussion intending to close it. I don't feel it would be helpful to close this discussion without hearing more response to the MOS:NATIONALITY argument. I'm pinging all the participants who commented before it was raised and that haven't already responded to it. The most relevant snippet of the guideline is "In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career than spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word 'and' reduces ambiguity." It would be helpful to the closer to know whether the guideline changes your mind, why you think it doesn't apply, or why you think an exception should be made.
    While I'm here, I'd also encourage users who posted vote-style responses to expand on their rationale, even if they don't have a response to NATIONALITY. I can't say every closer would do so, but I'd be likely to discount rationales like "it seems sensible" or "it seems best".
    @HAL333, Barnards.tar.gz, HiLo48, Storm machine, Iraniangal777, General Ization, Ortizesp, Binksternet, ActivelyDisinterested, Mako001, Pincrete, PHShanghai, and Songwaters. I'll leave a message at the IP talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much given up. The Brits here seem desperate to claim her as one of their own, despite how little of her life she spent there, and the fact that she declared herself to be primarily Australian. Putting "British" in her descriptor at all seems to be some sort of desperation on their part, and putting it first gives completely the wrong impression. Despite several, simply wrong claims to the contrary, Australians simply do not give their citizens double barrelled labels. Olivia was born in Britain, but she was Australian. She was NOT British-Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the opening statement, there was a previous RFC which was closed with clear consensus to describe the article subject as some sort of British-Australian. This RFC was to decide the precise terminology to use. Polyamorph (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked for my opinion. The existence of a previous RFC doesn't change it, and cannot justify a bad decision being made here. I have given reasons. I don't like being told my opinion doesn't count because of a bad decision made elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said your opinion does not count, although you have already stated it several times in this discussion (I am not sure why Firefangledfeathers pinged you to be honest). I was merely pointing out the existing consensus. It is for the closer to weigh where the consensus lies. Polyamorph (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I will keep stating it, until someone presents a rational argument to convince me I'm wrong. Far too many of the above comments contain no effective argument at all. Some have false claims. Some just aren't really logical at all to me. I wish we coud guarantee that a closer of thread like this would actually judge the quality of arguments, but I suspect that, sadly, weight of !votes is all that will count. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers explicitly stated the opposite. I trust any closer will base their decision on the quality, not quantity, of arguments. Polyamorph (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polyamorph. I pinged HiLo48 because they were an RfC participant that hadn't responded to the late-posted guideline argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clarifying. Polyamorph (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my opinion, which is that clarity is most important. On a side-note, I have UK origins and barely remember who O N-J was, despite being around her age, so I have no reason to want to 'claim' her. But when we refer to someone's nationality (citizenship) in the lead, we are referring to a basic factual matter about them. Not ordinarily to their identification, nor how British/Australian/Illyrian they were, or were seen to be. We either render the basic facts as accurately as we can, or we shouldn't bother IMO. Later sections will 'flesh out' how and when Hitchcock or T.S.Eliot (for example) were or became US or UK. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HiLo. The Brits here seem to want to claim her as one of their own, despite the fact she has stated herself to be Australian. Like I said early, I think it is very rude and disrespectful when someone has stated where she considers herself from, to go against those wishes and state somewhere else. Especially when that person has died. I think British born Australian is the best compromise and is the most relevant. Because those people who want her to be known as a British citizen get that. If it states she was born in the UK, the impression is she would have to be a British citizen, and it also takes note that she considers herself Australian, because she is listed as coming from there. So it's the most relevant, as well as the best compromise.101.176.97.4 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone is trying to "claim" ONJ on the basis of their own nationality. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well you don't have to be a genius, to read between the lines. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, we assume good faith. Accusations of bias and WP:NPOV policy violations are serious and should be avoided unless you have evidence. Polyamorph (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable based the reasons British users have been giving, and the arguments against it, to be able make such assessments. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about the Australian's who don't like it. But we don't go around casting aspersions here. If you continue to do so you are walking a fine line that could get you blocked, again. BTW, my !vote in the original RFC by the way was against inclusion of the term "British". In this RFC I accept the previous consensus because that is how we do things here. Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look I'm not really interested in casting any aspersions. But I do think the arguments from both sides speak for themselves. 101.176.97.4 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American who doesn't care about this article. Reviewing the MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines in order to make this decision British and Australian conforms with past practices. Please make your own arguments. Speculation about other editor's opinions isn't useful or productive. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Then why isn’t Anna Aquino allowed to be called a Canadian-New Zealand actress? Why is she simply New Zealand? Olivia was born there but became an Australian citizen and would have rennounced her British citizenship as Australia did not allow for dual nationality. She moved to America and maybe gained citizenship. My point it she was not a British citizen. British-born is perfectly fine to describe her.101.119.111.54 (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings

[edit]

It says John transgender instead of John Travolta and it says "Greece" interested if "Grease" 2600:8805:5601:85A0:EC12:92E7:F3DF:FF24 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Hi there, is someone able to add a first cousin twice removed, Albert Robson whose grandmother is Aerona Lansdown 2A02:C7E:493:A000:54FD:237A:E3FA:CF71 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Newton John's age

[edit]

Right panel indicates that she died at 73 years old but also says her birth year was 1963 and she died in 2022. Do the math, something doesn't add up! 2601:282:8700:5990:618F:FC1C:9A9:913C (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't say her birth year was 1963. It says "Years active" = 1963-2022. She wasn't active in the music industry on the day she was born. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brinley "Bryn" Newton John

[edit]

Brinley Newton John is notable... 3MRB1 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 ONJ's father 3MRB1 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a pretty impressive man. I knew of his record, but wasn't familiar with his name. If you are suggesting he should have an article of his own, I agree. Do you want to write it? HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Annotated link added to See also section to Perry v. Louisiana because ONJ was indirectly involved. If somebody would like to substitute this minor but interesting bit of information as prose, please do so. Thx. --136.54.106.120 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interview after her last diagnosis the breast cancer has metastasied

last / final diagnosis 182.54.166.107 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Image Option

[edit]

Through the Bettmann Archive I've managed to upload a new image candidate: The image is both in color, and depicts Newton-John in the 1970s

English born Australian singer and actress Olivia Newton-John pictured holding her award after receiving the Order of the British Empire (OBE) from Queen Elizabeth II during an Investiture ceremony at Buckingham Palace in London [in 1979].


File:Olivia Newton-John OBE.jpg

Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton

[edit]

Before she died a great deal was made about the fact that on her fathers side she is descended from Isaac newton. Since her death you only mention her mother's side. I wonder why. 24.148.77.197 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhps becaue there is no reliable source for the claim. Do you have one? There is also the fact that Newton is believed to have died a virgin? - Isaac Newton#Personality. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did she really have British citizenship?

[edit]

She apparently became a citizen of Australia in 1994. Australia did not have dual nationality until 2002, so she would have not have British citizenship then. Did she gain it again after 2002? If that’s the case invented she should be referred to as British-born Australian as Anna Paquin is simply referred to as New Zealander despite having been born-partially raised in Canada 120.19.152.181 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in UK, no indication she renounced her citizenship there when she moved to Australia so presume she kept it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could she do that if, as the OP wrote, Australia did not have dual nationality until 2002? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australia has no say on her UK citizenship, that is up to the UK and her. Australia might not recognize it but doesn't control it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this seems to be a very speculative guess as to her status. It would be good to have more substantial evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They have no say in her UK citizenship. But if they had no dual nationality in 2002, they wouldn’t have allowed her to become a citizen. 120.159.86.251 (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the extensive conversation about this issue in the first discussion on the talk page. Basically Brits moving to Australia at the time she did got full citizenship rights automatically so seldom applied for explicit Australian citizenship. They still considered themselves Australian. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very heavy US bias

[edit]

Her career description is very heavily biased towards the USA; admittedly she was more successful there but there's little mention of her early UK success or her duets with Cliff Richard in the 1990s. There is also little mention of her career in Australia. She is very highly regarded in the UK and there was a lot of coverage when she died so it would be good to have a bit more info on UK success. 82.15.184.69 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Olivia_Newton-John&oldid=1282763543"