Talk:Rebecca St. James

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christian music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Contemporary Christian Task Force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article is a biography of a living person and requires extra care to prevent the inclusion of unsourced information.
WikiProject Australia / Music (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Rebecca St. James is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

Changed photo[edit]

I have changed the photo because the last photo almost makes Rebecca St. James look mean: and i doubt her publicist would like that :) so we at wikipedia have decided to be nice & change it :p

Date change: vandalism?[edit]

These diffs were made by an anon.

- * She Teen: Safe, Healthy, And Empowered, co-authored with Lynda Hunter Bjorklund. July 2, 2002. + * She Teen: Safe, Healthy, And Empowered, co-authored with Lynda Hunter Bjorklund. September 18, 2005.

- * She: Safe, Healthy, Empowered - The Woman You're Made To Be, October 30, 2004. + * She: Safe, Healthy, Empowered - The Woman You're Made To Be, co-authored with Lynda Hunter Bjorklund. November 1, 2004.

I can't find a source, but it looks like it might be vandalism

It looks kind of confusing, different book store sites show different dates (and slightly different titles) for them all. I believe I used Amazon for the dates that were originally there. I will look into it. The page needs a lot of work anyway, some sources that back up the facts. Been meaning to work on this but I'm not much of a fan. --Foofy 02:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I know for a fact that the devotional book 40 Days with God was originally released in 1996 in conjunction with Rebecca's God album. I bought it then. If I could find it, I would post a more definitive date, but I do believe the problem here is people posting the dates of the books' reprintings rather than vandalism. I will look into it, and see if I can't come up with something citable. --LonelyPilgrim 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention some of the text needs to be reworded. "Encourages sex after marriage" sounds a little wrong. --24.39.223.22 01:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Fixed that and some of the other wording. Wordbuilder


She was released in 2004, trust me i'm a HUGE Fan!!! Everything on there is right. Oh and the 40 Days with God was re-released in 2001 to go along with the TRansform album which was released in 2000.

Sources[edit]

This article needs fact checking and sources. Please do not add new material unless you can back them up with other articles. --Foofy 23:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Refresh My Heart[edit]

Is this really her first album? It wasn't actually released by any label... Foofy 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes: [1] [2] [3] Utopianheaven 06:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If an album receives at least a fair amount of distribution, it should be counted. That said, Refresh My Heart was released on the label DTS Music and distributed by Word Australia. The later re-release, however, doesn't appear to have an associated label. Wordbuilder 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

Okay, I fixed the bibliography to a satisfactory degree of accuracy. I used primarily the Library of Congress catalog, Amazon.com, and personal recollection. None of this is very citable, but there does not seem to be any definitive source for Rebecca's bibliography. I removed the full publication dates from the bibliography, as they hardly seemed revelant — we're not citing articles here, and no other author page on Wikipedia uses full dates. They also seem to be where our dispute here lies, most likely due to differing release dates in differing places. --LonelyPilgrim 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we change this picture?[edit]

[[File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|30px]] This picture is not her best. We should change it to something else that is better. Later!!! Chili14 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But there IS the problem of copyrights. How many pix are/are not copyrighted and whether they're better or worse. HyperSushi21 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this pic: NonFreeImageRemoved.svg? I don't think it's copyrighted... it's the cover for the "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" single. 24.208.96.72 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll change it. Jesussaves 23:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though that picture isn't her best, it's the cover of her recent CD, so I'm gonna change it.

Error on song identity[edit]

The song, "Wait For Me", that appeared on The O.C., was written by Joan Jett and performed by the Runaways -- episode name, "The Girlfriend", date 9/9/03. [4] [5] 1diot 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Remixes[edit]

Is "Remixes" an actual album, or is it just an EP? I think it's just an EP, but I'm not sure. Anybody know? 24.208.96.72 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It is NOT an album. It is an extended play. Jesussaves 23:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus it's out-of-print. if you have it, it's pretty valuble.

Singles?[edit]

Does anyone have a list of Rebecca's singles? If you do, it would be great if you would give me a link to their tracks so that I can add them to Wikipedia. Thanks!!! Jesussaves 23:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A good suggestion is to look on her website and see if there are any listed on there. Or, you could go here.--Chili14TalkContribs 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a lsit of her singles to the page? Jesussaves 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably. It's a good idea, but a few of her singles don't have articles. btw, what's the difference between Albums and Singles? ~Sushi 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

nvm, I looked up EP ~Sushi 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A single is a song that the artist decides to put out on the radio. All the songs you hear on the radio are singles. A single is just a song from an album that gets to radio. They don't always release a CD for a single, but sometimes they do.

Is she married?[edit]

Just wonderring if she's married or not... HyperSushi21 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not currently. Wordbuilder 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, she is one of the biggest advocates of sexual purity in Christian music, right along there with BarlowGirl. Wait for Me is one of her most well-known songs. If/when she gets married, we will all know.--Chili14(Talk to me!|What I Do?) 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that I am one of a million who have been praying God will reward her patience and high standards with one wonderful husband. IMHO she is one of the most awesome women to ever grace the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4crates (talkcontribs) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I know, right 4crates? I'm praying that same thing. I keep coming back year after year to her website and Wikipedia to find out if she got married yet, only to see that there's no information at all on if she's even dated anyone... ever! I'd say "some fine, young Christian dude needs to step up," but it's getting to the point where we ain't so young anymore. I mean seriously. Dead serious. Is no one asking her? There're books about that. Nuclearjong (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, she is engaged. Her younger sister Libby confirmed it on her Facebook page.101cantbetamed101 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Books[edit]

How many books has she written/ What are they? ~Sushi 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You can see the list of books in the "bibliography" section of the article. 24.208.96.72 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Surfonic Water Revival[edit]

Should it be removed from the discography? It isn't a St. James album, she only sings one song on it. There are a handful of albums on which she only sings a song or two, and I don't think they should be listed in the discography. 24.208.96.72 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines discography as "A listing of all recordings which a musician or singer is on..." So the song itself would count, but since the rest of the list is in albums, it makes sense that the album be listed or pplz might think that the name of the song is an actual album. If you put the name of the song she sings next to the name of the album, it might clarify things a bit. ~Sushi 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I Believe in God: RSJ Treasury[edit]

I'm not quite sure that this is actually an album so I removed it. If the user who added it could kindly give a source for proof that such an album exists, I would appreciate it. ;) 24.208.96.72 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh that! Sorry... That's the list of the songs that I think should be on her next best of album. It's not a real album. Sorry... I probably should've posted it in here to see what people thought about it... Hmmm...


NEW LIVE ALBUM!!![edit]

Yes, it's coming in the spring/summer. It's officially said that RSJ will release a live DVD/CD of her If I Had One Chance... Tour! So rad!!! Plus you can get a sneak peek if you huy the WOW HIts 2007 DVD, cuz it has "God Help Me" LIVE!!!

Citations[edit]

This article doesn't cite any of its sources! We really need to find citations for all the info in here. 24.169.255.232 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've helped some on that! 66.191.27.139 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey Everyone! No Deleting...[edit]

My picture of her name! It's her official title card! Thanx! TickleTot 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know is this is true...[edit]

It says Relient K thinks she's "HOT!" Even if this is true it makes no sense to post it. So I'm deletin' it! 66.191.27.139 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also changed her Years Active thing. She actually technically started in '93. That's when she started recording and was signed and stuff. She even thinks of it as her 1st year, b/c she released her Best Of in 2003, 10 years after she started, so I t5hink you get my point! 66.191.27.139 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rebecca is reportedly dating James Haven, Angelina Jolie's brother."[edit]

This phrase is in the introduction and doesn't cite the source. Please cite your source or I'm going to delete this as gossip. ~Sushi 07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was reported by Perez Hilton and others. Run up an article "from Santa Angelina to Saint James" here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2007/05/from-santa-angelina-to-st-james.html

http://subthemag.com/tss/tag/rebecca-st-james —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.73.31 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

She is not now, nor has she ever dated James Haven. She accompanied him to an event once. whatever Perez Hilton reports is Rubbish. The man is an idiot, and needs to be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galentrafford (talkcontribs) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Galentrafford, I second that. Nuclearjong (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Her Pro-Life Stance[edit]

Could someone give some more info on her pro-life stance and some citations. I know that she is radically pro-life (I'm not debating that) but I just think that subject deserves some more space. Thanks! -SeaSpray17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.25.80 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

The third link isn't reachable. --Darkbrew7 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Discography Page[edit]

I added all her singles and tours to her discography page and deleted them from the main page because they took up a lot of room. Hope that's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.111.97 (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Press[edit]

--Lexein (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved[edit]

I moved this claim from the article to here for discussion and sourcing:

In Brazil,Rebecca,has some versions of her songs By Rafaela Pinho: Above all(Por Amor-2003),Song of Love(Canção de Amor-2003),Breath(Tu és o meu viver-2003)e The Power of your Love(O poder do amor-2005).

I've revised it thus:

In Brazil, Rafaela Pinho sings some of St. James' songs: Above all(Por Amor-2003), Song of Love (Canção de Amor-2003), Breath(Tu és o meu viver-2003) and The Power of your Love (O poder do amor-2005).

Are there any supporting sources for this (news, mag, book)? At the moment, Rafaele Pinho does not yet have her own Wikipedia article: is she Notable per Wikipedia standards? Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: Song titles should be in quotes. Also, don't create redlinks.
I found a video for "Por Amor" and it's a translated version of "Above All", however the song is written by Lenny LeBlanc and Paul Baloche. St. James only recorded a cover version (and so did Michael W. Smith).
I also found a video for "Canção de Amor" and it is "Song of Love".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcRTSlWU82w - "Tu és o meu viver" is "Breathe" but is by Marie Barnett.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idcb58eJv0g - "O poder do amor" is "The Power of Your Love", but that's by Geoff Bullock.
In short, it has very little to do with St. James and it makes little sense to include in her article. A mention of the cover of "Song of Love" would be appropriate in the Worship God article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Connections[edit]

Moved here after deletion as non-notable:

Rebecca St James is the niece of Ian Smallbone. Ian Smallbone is a member of the Christian music band "Family" who began their career in 1972. Rebecca's uncle Ian still performs occasionally with the other members of "Family" in Queensland Australia. More information on Ian Smallbone and "Family" can be found here on Family's official website

Less about notability, its only source is self-published. This may have a place later, rewritten and with reliable sources, as part of a section on connections with other groups. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Ian Smallbone notable? If not see WP:BLP. A family vanity page is not a reliable source. In other words, we could list all of the subject's uncles and aunts, however if they are not notable in a Wikipedia sense (see general notability guidelines) then mentioning them is not appropriate. Her brothers are mentioned as their band is notable. Her father, who also recorded music in Australia is not mentioned either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I can confidently assure you that WP:N explicitly does not refer to content items in articles, only to whole article topics - its says so itself. I agree that the above paragraph doesn't belongs in the article now, because of lack of secondary sources and lack of apparent relevance. Did the uncle or Family help Rebecca get started or have any other connection to her career? No? Then he and Family are not particularly relevant. Just as advice, we try not to use "notable" when referring to specific content, we use "verifiable in independent reliable source(s)" instead, because that's the focus, for content items, or as I refer to them, "claims." For whole articles, then it's all about capital-N Notability.--Lexein (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't? Oh, WP:BLPNAME is under the scope and it states:
"The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."
As I said, BLP issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are some problems with the most recent entry:
  1. Incorrect formatting. (see this edit)? I have provided a list of links on the editor's talk page.
  2. The link provided states that one of the musicians is "Ian Smallbone". There is no indication that the subject is related to St. James despite having the same family name and being in the same country, there's no support that this is her uncle. This goes against verifiable sources.
  3. A vanity page is not a reliable source. I can create one that says the exact opposite of anything made on that "official" page with as much credibility as that one.
Even if this were all true, mentioning the musicians is not appropriate. Adding that link as the first external link is also against WP:EL, specifically WP:ELYES.
  1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
The supplied site does not fall into any of those categories. It's certainly not number three because there's not addition to an encyclopedic understanding of St. James. Placing it first is also unduly promotional. It screams "look at me first since I'm most important".
Since the editor who most recently added it is named Chris4shon and the editor of that page is Chris Fauchon, this is a quite blatant promotion.
That the editor is sandboxing an article for the band is also interesting. That band doesn't meet notability requirements (see above). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Walter, I don't know why you're being so prosecutorial about this, but my point about N stands, and your point about BLPNAMES does not refute it, because of "if they are not properly sourced." In other words, N is not relevant for content: only if there are RS, which was my point: V via RS is not the same as N, and is not required to be. As for the rest, I never said the vanity page was reliable, so why bang on about it? I don't care about the EL or the vanity site, because I'll never cite them as sources. Cheer up. http://xkcd.com/386/ -Lexein (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't mean to be adversarial about it. Notability does apply to discussing related individuals in articles. It's a well-standing point at BPL.
Also, I'm making my case (there's that adversarial language again!) with the editor who keeps adding the material (Chris4shon), not you. I agree that the N and BLP issue is not clearly defined at BPL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so basically, people who aren't mentioned in WP:RS (meaning non-"public") shouldn't be roped into somebody else's BLP - with that, I totally agree and have no problem. I think we're getting hung up on BLPNAMES's "However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Emphasis mine:
  • From WP:N - "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." Emphasis mine, and of course this does not remove the requirement for V in RS for content.
  • There's an annoying inconsistency in language. There's WP:N (V by substantive discussion in RS over time) (article topics), and just plain old WP:V in an RS or two (a claim in an article). That second one has no single-word name, other than "verified" which has the same meaning as "reliably sourced"- the more commonly used phrase. Above, the phrase "properly sourced" is a sort of I-know-what-you-mean colloquialism, and maybe should be revised to the more formal "reliably sourced".
I guess I'm just saying that "properly sourced" and "reliably sourced" don't a) guarantee or b) imply Wikipedia "notability" so we shouldn't raise the bar on some related band beyond "reliably sourced." Keeping in mind my agreement about relevance.
--Lexein (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy & Walter Gorlitz' edit-warring[edit]

Something needs to be done to end Walter Gorlitz' territorial reign over this article. Rebecca St. James publicly announced her pregnancy almost a month ago, yet he seems obsessed with keeping this information out of the article, despite citations to both St. James' official Facebook page and to the Christian Music Makers blog. Not only has he reverted the edits of at least three different editors on the subject of her pregnancy, but he falsely accused me of IP-hopping (I wasn't; several editors have tried to add the same information to the article) and threatened to have me blocked! He is also dangerously close to violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule; all of his recent reversions have been without merit or explanation. While he screams "WP:BLP" at every turn, all the edits he's reverting are clearly supported with valid citations.

I also note, upon reading the older comments on this talk page, that he has a vituperative history with other posters. It is clear that Mr. Gorlitz has a personal obsession with monitoring the details of Rebecca's personal life and attacking anyone who makes a good faith edit, but whatever the reason, his nasty gatekeeping (including reversions without explanation, empty threats, false accusations on others' talk pages) needs to stop.

Mr. Gorlitz has stated that he wants to lock this article. Go ahead and do that, if you wish, but it won't resolve the issue. Wikipedia users will always free to add any information to an article, as long as it's accurate and supported by citations. Rebecca's pregnancy is both, and therefore it validly belongs in this article, whether you like it or not. The problem is not editors providing proper citations--they're already doing that. The problem is you.67.169.76.129 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I"m sorry. If you can't provide a reference to support the supplied date, it will have to be removed. Whether you like it or not, it's a violation of WP:BLP. While the edits may be made in good faith, they cannot stay with a support of the date. There's no question the subject is pregnant, but the date of birth is not supported. We have a "20 weeks pregnant" statement, but that the picture may have been taken that date or two months earlier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: You are both edit warring over this, and both of you have been blocked for 24 hours. Walter Görlitz (t c), my determination is that this material is not sufficiently contentious to count as an edit-warring exception under BLP, especially given that you have a history of edit warring. The material could have been reworded in such a way as to avoid the topic of the due date without a wholesale revert. 67.169.76.129 (talk), you could have avoided an edit war by coming to the talk page sooner, and I can understand why Walter had problems with the sources you were citing -- but that doesn't make either of you "right". The next step will be (full) article protection if this continues. —Darkwind (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)