This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
veganism and
vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
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)reply
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
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 Leaves18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Leaves21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Richmond19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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?
Bearcat07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Stars17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Bearcat09:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 Leaves00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Richmond17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Richmond17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 Leaves00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Bearcat01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Bearcat06:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Bearcat00:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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 Stars14:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 fan05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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. —
Mike16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Richmond17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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 Leaves19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. —
Mike20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Leaves21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Bearcat16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Wordy114:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"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.
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)reply
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)reply
Janesiberry.com web site shut down
When I checked today, the domain janesiberry.com has only three phrases on it: