Talk:Jane Siberry

Contributions

In 2005 Jane Siberry contibuted to the album "Interview with the Angel" by "Ghostland". This also features Sinead O'Connor and Brian Eno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.219.221 (talk • contribs) 10:12, November 2, 2005

I have added another compilation to which Jane Siberry contributed: Chanson des mers froides, 1994, Hector Zazou; "She's Like A Swallow." Moremoth (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Children

Does anybody know if Jane Siberry has any children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.213.140 (talk • contribs) 03:02, December 14, 2005

I don't think so, but she's very private. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, she does not have any children Poslfit 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

Jane Siberry has recently changed her name, but has kept it private from (most of) her fans. I have added this to the page. Also, there is also speculation that Siberry was an adopted name, taken from her aunt. Can anyone clairfy on the latter? Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, siberry was taken from a relative (don't remember exactly if it was her aunt but could be) her birth name is of scottish origin Charlie Richmond 00:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Has she ever revealed it? Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if she has publicly - we are personal friends and I don't feel comfortable going any further than this... Charlie Richmond 22:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious if she has or not, not what it was. I couldn't care less if her name was Jane Troutfishwoman. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stewart was her surname in high school. I don't know why she changed it.

"Jane Stewart". Gee, I can't imagine why she wouldn't use that. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ISSA

The article states that her new name is Arabic for "Jesus." I know this to be true; however, is it really relevant? The only reason I would think to have it put up there is if she desired the name for that reason. The name also has ties to Buddhism. I don't know if it's all really necessary. It's possible to get in touch with Jane via MySpace to resolve this if there is a problem. Thorns Among Our Leaves 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Issa says "what i find disturbing is the way it suggests that that is why i chose the name. I don't think naming myself jesus is something I would feel comfortable doing!" Charlie Richmond 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I figured she'd feel that way. I'm putting that in the article, if that's okay. Thorns Among Our Leaves 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Birth name

Her birthname was NOT Jane Siberry. Don't ask me what it was. Thorns Among Our Leaves 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirection

I strongly disagree with redirecting the article from "Jane Siberry" to "Issa." While these two names refer to a single empirical individual person, they refer to two different aesthetic subjects. "Jane Siberry" is the creator of the albums Jane Siberry, No Borders Here, The Walking, When I Was a Boy and so on through Shushan the Palace (Hymns of Earth). Thus far, "Issa" has not released any work publicly. At any rate, the redirection from one name to the other is in no sense a minor edit, as the history of revisions would indicate.

The point made above is driven home at Sheeba, the Siberry/Issa online store. Downloads are available from three artists: Adrienne Pierce, Jane Siberry, and Issa (though nothing is in the Issa catalog yet). All the recordings that Siblings know up to this point are works by "Jane Siberry" and apparently always will be, notwithstanding anything Issa might do from now on.

In the article under its current edit, we read that Issa's first album was titled Jane Siberry, but this is simply not true. That album was the creation of "Jane Siberry," who will no longer be active.

All this is to say: as creative artists, "Jane Siberry" and "Issa" are not identical. "Jane Siberry" is an artist whose body of work is complete. The work of "Issa," on the other hand, is appearing entirely ab ovo, as one can see on the Issa website.

Heaventree of Stars 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And just when we all thought Pilot Speed was the most radical name change we were going to see in Canadian music this year...this is a tricky one, certainly. I'd defer to her own wishes, if she expresses any. Could any of those people who've said on this talk page that they know her personally ask her to clarify whether she wants the credit on her older material changed to Issa or kept as Jane Siberry? Bearcat 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I implied before, I think this question is answered at her own web-store, where there are separate sections for work by "Jane Siberry" (including all the recordings that have been available up to now, except When I Was a Boy and Maria [as of 7/5/06]) and work by "Issa" (nothing yet). No doubt this arrangement reflects her own wishes. Heaventree of Stars 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure that's likely, if we have access to people who know her personally, I don't think it would be that unreasonable to ask her for confirmation, especially since certain people have already gone ahead and retroactively replaced almost every single appearance of her former name in the entire article. These are always tricky situations; it can't hurt to extend her a bit respect by confirming what her wishes are. Bearcat 09:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research is defined as "material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that have not been previously published by a reputable source." I know it's a bit bizarre to consider, but something can be entirely true — and yet have no place on Wikipedia, if we can't prove it to be true. — Mike (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both the redirection and the name-changing throughout. Jane Siberry and Issa are two distinct "people." Jane Siberry is of the past and released all of those albums. Issa is the new. I suggest we vote on contacting her and asking her which she prefers. I speak to her on a semi-regular basis, so I could probably ask, unless someone who knows her more personally (something to which Charlierichmond claims, and I trust him in good faith) would rather do so. Thorns Among Our Leaves 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust. I am returning to Vancouver where she seems to be located for a while right now and would be pleased to bring up any issues that people feel are of interest here. Keep in mind of course that she often considers such prurient matters of interest to be completely beside the point for her artistry, which is what she primarily focuses on publicly. She is non-confrontational to the extent that I may not get any answers whatsoever, satisfactory or otherwise and I certainly won't push the matter since I completely respect her privacy. You might be interested in the fact that she was sending emails as early as March this year with the name I S S A as the sender name, so it has been in consideration for at least as long as that. She does not assume changes lightly. Charlie Richmond 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you. Thorns Among Our Leaves 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had a brief email conversation with Issa on this subject and her response is simply

"it is not appropriate to back date issa to my past work. it runs counter to the whole point of it. (completion of the siberry body of work)." Charlie Richmond 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

She also appreciates that everyone respects her privacy. Charlie Richmond 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dude.  :) Thorns Among Our Leaves 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Issa is not Jane. Issa could contribute to this article if it is not redirected to Issa. Unless, of course, she changes her minds some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.211.225 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Debate of Sexual Preference

While this hasn't been a problem here (yet), I'm going to make it one. Many debate her sexual preference... I have one source that says she is lesbian. How reputable is this? As with her birth name, I couldn't care less if she was or not, but many seem to want to know more about stuff SHE hasn't exposed. She often replies to these questions in interviews with stuff like "that's none of your business," or more playful responses. Is any of this of note, or more "original research"? There are other Wiki articles that provide historical claims and evidenced "speculative" sexuality. Thorns Among Our Leaves 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's be legitimate to note in the article that speculation about her sexuality exists, but as far as I know she's never made a public statement either way, so we'd have to be careful not to cross the line between saying "some people think she's a lesbian" and objectively stating that she is lesbian. That would be my main concern, but I'm generally in favour of documenting speculation about the sexuality of public figures whose identity is ambiguous — in part precisely because some people tend to step over that line if we don't clearly document the unconfirmedness of the matter. Bearcat 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then... What's a good way to go about doing so without ticking people off? Thorns Among Our Leaves 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd think something in the general vicinity of "Although some sources have speculated or even asserted that she is lesbian (provide some examples), she has never issued a public statement regarding her sexuality." Adjust for wording as needed. Bearcat 06:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work — "weasel words" are against Wikipedia's policy. See link. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in that statement is a weasel word; did you miss the (provide some examples) part?. Bearcat 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the link references "some people say", "spread[ing] hearsay", etc. — Mike (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest you may wish to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Her sexuality is not verifiable if it is a rumor, even if it is a rumor offered by third-party sources. — Mike (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The link in question references using such terms without providing specific examples of who said it. It does not preclude the provision of specific examples of the thing being asserted.
2. Nobody's suggesting that the existence of rumours verifies her sexuality; the existence of rumours verifies the fact that her sexuality has been a subject of debate. There is a big difference between those two things. Bearcat 00:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you proposing something written in the form detailed here:

"Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"

That'd be at least marginally better than "some sources."

I'd also note in passing that the editors who have worked on the Tom Cruise article made no mention of rumors regarding his homosexuality except when mentioning those lawsuits Cruise himself initiated.

Finally, I'd note that one of the most emphatic points of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is that the article must conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states, "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources," and offers this link to a page detailing what reliable sources are.

You might want to note that WP:OFFICE gets enacted by the higher-ups most frequently when we're talking about biographies of living people. — Mike (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh God... What have I done? Thorns Among Our Leaves 02:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it instructive that the topic under discussion constitutes "negative material" per the warning at the top of the page. I don't think it's interesting or relevant in any meaningful fashion to the artistry of the subject, but I certainly don't think it negative. Heaventree of Stars 14:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Template:Blp may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this guideline." My placement of the guideline there was not meant to imply that lesbian sexuality is negative material, merely, per the guideline, to alert people to the WP:BLP page, which is what the first sentence of the template does. Paranthetically, after working as her legal secretary for six years, I helped the first Cook County Circuit Court judicial candidate to run as an "out" lesbian get elected a few years back, so I feel fairly comfortable in knowing I do not consider lesbian sexuality a negative thing. — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot answer the question of how she identifies her sexuality currently, but earlier in her career ("No Borders Here" era) she was involved romantically with her bassist John Switzer. Later, ("Maria" era) she shared a home with Rebecca Jenkins. If her sexuality needs to be mentioned, "bisexual" would seem to be the most accurate label.K8 fan 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that this very conversations among others that inevitably arose due to her work with k.d. laing and her inclusion in a compilation album called "Lesbian Favorites" merits a mention that she found acceptance by a lesbian community and also mention that no pertinent breach to her privacy has ever substantiated any declaration of sexual orientation or mention of personal desire beyond her romance with John Switzer. -anonymous (UTC)

Removal of Quotation

I removed the quotation Charlie provided from the article. The reason I did this is that it is original research — something we are not permitted to do.

Wikipedia has a few bedrock principles that we're supposed to, at all costs, adhere to as editors. One of those bedrock principles is the idea of verifiability, which requires that articles "must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."

As editors, we're not simply allowed to contact the celebrity in question, obtain quotes directly from her, and then include them in the article. That is the very definition of conducting our own research, it's not verifiable by any third-party means, and thus it's not something we're permitted to do here.

Not only that, but these are two of the very core principles of Wikipedia, meaning it's not even a policy that can really be negotiated or overturned.

Please understand, I am not accusing Charlie of lying. But the thing is, here, verifiability comes into play: we have absolutely no way of verifying that he actually spoke with Issa, and even if we were somehow able to prove it, it'd still be original research in that there would be no third-party source we could turn to in order to cite and verify that quote.

Look at it from a different angle: we all know Wikipedia has many, many trolls, some of which utilize very subtle tactics. Were it not for the verifiability policy, there'd be nothing to stop a troll from seeding Wikipedia with plenty of false content by pretending to do just as Charlie's done: claim to have had an e-mail exchange with the subject of an article.

It's just not a method of research into her life that we're allowed to utilize when preparing articles here. — Mike 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is just great! Why didn't someone say this is not allowed when I offered to talk to her about it? Now I look like a schmuck to her and to you. Sheesh. Charlie Richmond 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look above, I made a comment on this page about this policy July 8, 2006. Look for the text under "Redirection" that begins with "Original research is defined as ... ". I'm sorry no one brought it to your attention, Charlie.

If I'm reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves, if Issa herself posted to her official website, or her official MySpace blog — or if she said something in an interview or in a public speech — I believe these would be acceptable sources (assuming whatever was to be added met Wikipedia's other content policies). Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a better breakdown. — Mike 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is 100% ridiculous to claim the source of the quotation is not reputable or able to be used when the author of the quotation IS THE PERSON IN QUESTION. If Jane herself added the quotation, would it be POV because she contributed to her own article? Charlie was confirming two bits of information both critical and controversial to the article at hand: referring to her as Siberry throughout in terms of the canon of her work, and the meaning of her name (which I still feel is TOTALLY irrelevant to the article, now that she herself dispelled this as the reason for her name change). I understand that policy basically makes it akin to an interview, but if this is something that Jane herself wants clarified, we should respect and honor her wishes. - a quite upset Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your concerns: first, the question is not whether Siberry actually provided the quote, but whether we can prove through a third-party verifiable source -- and a source that is considered reliable, and is not original research (and thus not us) -- that Siberry said this. We do not have such a source; thus, the quotation is not verifiable and cannot be in the article. Had it come from her website, her blog, or a published interview with her, it would most likely be acceptable. Second, with regard to the theoretical example you gave me, Jane would be asked to contribute as laid out in WP:AUTO#If Wikipedia already has an article about you. Finally, you'll note I not only did not object to changing the references of her prior work from "Issa" back to "Siberry", I went along with it by correcting one you missed. That is a stylistic decision of little consequence, and as I believe Charles actually spoke with Issa, I see no harm in erring towards that preference. With regard to the meaning of her name, again, I see no harm in removing the incidental "oh, and it's Arabic for Jesus" remark, especially as that's already mentioned on the Issa disambiguation page. Therefore, although we cannot introduce original research into the article, I think her wishes have nevertheless been respected. However, it is very important to note that it is very much not desirable for a Wikipedia article about a living person to solely reflect the desires of what its subject does and does not want included and/or covered. Wikipedia entries aim to be objective — with all that entails. I cannot imagine Jeffrey Skilling, for example, would be pleased with his Wikipedia entry. — Mike 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Influences

Her personal musical influences include Van Morrison and Miles Davis.

Where has this been printed? I think it would also be safe to list the Beatles (she thanks John Lennon on When I Was A Boy, which also features a track that paraphrases "The End"'s famous mantra ["The Gospel According To Darkness"]) and Laura Nyro ("When I Think Of Laura Nyro"). Thorns Among Our Leaves 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

She references the importance of Miles Davis here.--Wordy1 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Globe and Mail

Nice interview with Issa in The Globe and Mail today; available here. Note that Globe articles tend to go paid-archive after about a week, so it wouldn't be appropriate to directly include it as an external link, although we could potentially cite it as a source for a few things. She explains some of the reasoning behind her name change, clarifies that she didn't know that it means Jesus in some languages before choosing it (she specifies, in fact, that she was looking for a feminine variant of the name Isaiah), and she does cite her Miles Davis CDs as among the possessions that she's kept in storage because she couldn't bear to give them up. Bearcat 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On Issa's website, she has a reprint of the Globe and Mail piece mentioned above. I have created a reference to it. I'm not sure if I did the citation exactly Wiki-right considering I'm new to this; nevertheless, this lends some substantiation to the final paragraphs of the entry.--Wordy1 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

lol

Genres: "all genres"

does this include trancecore, bhangra, sludge metal and dark ambient? Demonic Duck (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bitch alert

"Not only that, but these are two of the very core principles of Wikipedia, meaning it's not even a policy that can really be negotiated or overturned."

I love this. Finally something even more durable than a national constitution, which can be negotiated, amended or presumably even overturned if The People so decide.

I haven't heard that much speculation about her being a lesbian, people are more interested in discussing the fact that she's an absolte cunt to anyone who works for her.

In reply to the above anonymous comment: I've worked for her, and she is far from the most difficult client I've ever had. Poslfit (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Overdue Recognition

Am I the only one who thinks that the way the Canadian audience turned against Jane Siberry is every bit as unfair and as odious as the way the English audience turned against the actrice Maggie Smith because God' forbid their only sin was being incredibly talented and having no obvious flaws? Enough, Jane Siberry is one fantastic talent that deserves more recognition! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.179.52 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the audience particularly turned against her. Unfortunately, though, she did kind of slip through the cracks in terms of being able to get on the radio as her music became less "pop", with the result that a good many people who would love her newer music don't actually know that it even exists because they haven't heard it. And when the hell did the English ever turn against Maggie Smith? Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Janesiberry.com web site shut down

When I checked today, the domain janesiberry.com has only three phrases on it:

Jane Siberry

closed.

© 2015 jane siberry. All Rights Reserved.

Anyone know the story?K8 fan (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)