Talk:Ann-Margret

Suggested addition of photo to 1990s and 2000s section

Propose the addition of this image as there are no images of Ann-Margret in her later life. The proposed image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

[[

Ann-Margret

|thumb|Ann-Margret in 1997]] Joelphotofix (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article name first

It's normal that the article's name comes first in bold type in the first line of the lead. I see no reason to make an exception here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For biographical articles, I think it's proper, or at least acceptable, to start the lead sentence with the subject's full birth name. See for example Petrarch and Cleopatra which are used as an example in MOS:LEADBIO. Also Madonna, Will Rogers, and Gary Glitter. CodeTalker (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for using the talk page which none of the others involved have bothered with! I suppose the article-name-fist policy is no longer valid. I really thought it was. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stage name and top photo

I do not agree with this edit when it comes to the removal of her stage name from the lead (not just the bold type but completely removed!) nor the awful unrepresentative photo being placed at the top again (it has been moved from there several times before). What's in the edit summary is not policy per guideline as far as I can find. I will reinstate both items soon unless someone can give us a good reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stage name  Done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For living people it's best to have the latest image possible, especially since she's still active. When she passes we can make the infobox pic a photo from the peak of her fame.—indopug (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that that is Wikipedia policy as per guideline. Especially not when the only relatively recent photo we have of her looks like the article is about a sweaty, somewhat anxious cocktail hostess in a Las Vegas hotel where the air conditioning went out. That photo, in my opinion, is so inappropriate as a representation of this beautiful and talented actress that it shouldn't even be in here at all. Just because somebody manages to snap an awful photo of a celebrity doesn't mean it should be used.
Anyone else? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @SergeWoodzing (except I think it looks more like a mug shot). It's barely recognizable as the actress. Template:Infobox_person#Image simply says The image in the infobox should be representative of the person who is the subject of the article. and the image in question is hardly representative. That we don't have a decent quality image taken recently doesn't mean we have to use a lousy quality image. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decent-recent go together like love-marriage (?), horse-carriage (??) & Wiki-tricky (!). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National background

The standard term for this is Swedish-American. It's been used for many many decades and there is no reason not to use it. She has done interviews in Swedish and several major articles about her Swedish heritage and journeys back to the motherland. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would go against our guidance at MOS:NATIONALITY, where the lead sentence should talk about her national citizenship during her period of notability, which is American. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say Ann-Margret's Swedish heritage isn't relevant to her notability in this coversation. I just think it's fine to explain it later in the lead. Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see an argument for both. She's notable for being both Swedish and American. For starters, the article has been pretty stable with Swedish-American for about 15 years. In the early 1960s, when she rose to fame, newspapers frequently described her as Swedish, 1961, 1962 (two examples out of many), and in 1964, she told the Los Angeles Times that she was Swedish. Some book sources with Swedish-American actress:
A few editors started a trend not too long ago and began to change many famous persons' nationality items to "a [birth]-born, [activity] person...". So tedious, so unnecessary, so cluttered, so wordy, so unclear, but ... oh! .. so trendy. I've found it very irritating. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to both Swedish and American because she was born in Sweden and raised in the US. And she is bilingual in Swedish and English. Beatlemania2002 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, how about "American ... of Swedish origin"? It's kinda common on Wikipedia, and "Swedish-American" is vague to me. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like to me it is back to the status-quo, Swedish-American. Might as well just leave it alone, in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be changed. Swedish-American is an ethnicity, which makes it ambiguous when also serving to denote her nationalities. See MOS:ETHNICITY, specifically the Arnold Schwarzenegger example, which explains exactly why we don't want the article to read as it does right now. It should read Swedish and American or American and Swedish (I am agnostic as to which goes first, someone else can fight that war). Chubbles (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Schwazenegger: "The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship." Olsson does not have dual citizenship and her ethnicity is Swedish-American. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the lede leads with nationality, rather than ethnicity; listing the ethnicity is specifically discouraged, precisely because, in cases such as this one, it is ambiguous with nationality. Furthermore, it's substituting here in the lede in the place typically reserved for nationality (the country where the person is a national, again per MOS:ETHNICITY). If she does not hold Swedish citizenship, then it should say American (or Sweden-born American), and the ethnicity should be explained later in the lede and/or in the prose of the body. Chubbles (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Guideline example you gave for Schwarzenegger as quoted clearly defines this at odds with your opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rationale here seems to rely on the fact that she does not hold Swedish citizenship. This makes it less supportable to mention Sweden in the first sentence of the lede. Assuming arguendo that you are correct about this, then she is Swedish by ethnicity but not by nationality - and nationality is what the lede should state, again per MOS:ETHNICITY. It's actively confusing if she does not hold Swedish citizenship but is identified as (part) Swedish at the top of the lede - for instance, José González (singer) is (correctly) identified as Swedish in the lede, as he is Swedish by nationality but not by ethnicity. "Swedish" is multiple things - it is a nationality, an ethnicity, and a language all at once, and the article should be unambiguous about which of these is the referent. Chubbles (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where the idea comes from that because a person becomes a US citizen they no longer have the ethnicity which they are well known for. Ms. Olsson has a well-known Swedish heritage. She has worked in Swedish and is well known for her trips there. When she was granted US citizenship, legislation in Sweden was such that she automatocally lost her Swedish citizenship. Sweden did not allow dual citizenhip until the 2000s. Anyone interested in denying someone the accuracy of being upfront wih their etnicity needs to explain why, and why that is so important, what personal reasons are behind that, if any. Ann-Margret Olsson is Swedish-American in every sense of the word as used for centuries, notwithstanding different POV interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines. We are not here to change the life stories of famous people for no good reasons, but to describe them clearly and accurately. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS González was born in Sweden, thus making that example irrelevant too. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Following MOS:ETHNICITY is not a denial of anybody's ethnic heritage. It is a deliberate decentering of ethnicity as a primary means of identifying people. As it stands, this article makes ethnicity literally the first thing you find out about the article subject, and in the place where nation or territory is meant to be put. The article can and should (and does!) robustly discuss her Swedish heritage elsewhere. I have already explained why, and why this is so important; it seems clear that we will never change each other's minds on this point, so I will file a WP:3O request for a path forward. Chubbles (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    3O is for two editors involved in a dispute, the discussion above shows more than two people have been in this discussion. Swedish-American has been the status-quo for 10+ years, it does not need to be changed, if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    3O Response: Procedural decline. As noted, more than two editors have been involved (and are now recently involved as per the above comment) in this discussion. I would have suggested pinging the editors involved earlier, but one of those editors has now rejoined the discussion; the others may be pinged as desired. If there's a need for further opinions, the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page could be solicited as well. Otherwise, if a consensus cannot be reached, please feel free to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the reason for the 3O denial. As to the third editor's addition, "it's the status quo" isn't a justifiable response. MOS:ETHNICITY was developed and refined since this particular article's first sentence was decided upon, so reconsidering the article status is advisable. Chubbles (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh ... "refined"? There is nothing refined about denying this subject her correct heritage desription in the lead. MOS:ETHNICITY cannot, should not, be intepreted to do so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? "Refined" is a verb there, not an adjective. As in, shaped and streamlined. Just so I'm clear on your case for the status quo, can you explain to me how MOS:ETHNICITY supports the inclusion of ethnicity in the first sentence of the lede of this article? Because the current wording of that guideline specifically says that ethnicity should generally not be included in the lede, and that country of nationality or permanent residence should be included instead. Chubbles (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:ETHNICITY has definitely not been refined so as to coincide with your incorrect interpretation. It would not be possible, I think, for any Wikipedia guideline to be "refined" so that readers would get less accurate and less clear information. We simply do not refine things like that. Olsson is a Swedish-American. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, this conversation has clearly run aground, as I believe I am now being willfully misinterpreted. I will seek input at the talk page for WP:MOSBIO about this issue. Chubbles (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Participants here may want to weigh in at WT:MOSBIO#MOS:ETHNICITY as applies to Ann-Margret, as a robust discussion is occurring and the position defended by the two major commenters here is not winning the day. Chubbles (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And then, why not just reinstate Swedish citizenship in the short description, since the user disruptively restored some revisions of the article without consulting this before taking this action? It has already been shown that Margaret was born in Sweden and is Swedish by birth, then emigrated to the United States where she became a naturalized US citizen since 1949, so some news references left by a temporary account aren't very helpful, even to some of you if I'm proposing something new in this talk page and can't think of anything else. It would be better to review MOS:ETHNICITY again, the examples you will see below show that dual citizenship is omitted from each article which applied to each of them. The same occurs with Anya Taylor-Joy, whose dual citizenship was also omitted for obvious reasons, as was Ann-Margaret. ~2025-38133-95 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes no sense for the short description and the lede to have different information about her. These should be consistent, so whatever decision is made for one should hold for the other. (I didn't do this initially simply because I didn't notice the short description was different.) Reinstating Swedish as the sole descriptor in the shortdesc is a nonstarter, because we are not reinstating Swedish as the sole descriptor in the lede (since, as this and the other discussion have established, would be at best ambiguous and at worst actively misleading). It appears she is not a dual citizen; she is (I am led to believe) only an American citizen, and most of her career was carried out in the US. I'm not necessarily strongly opposed to an Anya Taylor-Joy situation here, but honestly, the case for identifying her as merely American is pretty strong. Chubbles (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone using Google, Encyclopædia Britannica, etc. to search for Ann-Margret will still get the correct and accurate overview that she is a Swedish-American actress. This is certainly not the first time that the lead sentence in a Wikipedia article contradicts the mainstream view on a subject, nor will it be the last time. It is what it is.— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block IPs!

IP users are constantly making inappropriate edits re her national background. How about restricting this to logged-in users, at least for a time? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but maybe you can ask at WP:RFPP if the disruption persists? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full Metal Jacket

This actress is mentioned repeatedly in the film ‘Full Metal Jacket’ Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has a source noted these repeated mentions? DonIago (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I’m aware of, which is why I didn’t add it to the article, but it’s a simple fact that she is mentioned as I saw the film recently. I shall search for a ‘reliable’ source, I’m sure one can be found. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For these kinds of mentions a secondary source is typically required per WP:IPCV. Thank you for asking first! DonIago (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann-Margret