Talk:Rachael Sage

as per Ms. Sage's bio she is an american musician of jewish heritige

Please see her statements in her biography[1] on her official website that is listed under External links at the bottom of this article. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link to 2006 Interview

have put back the correct link for 2006 interview w/Ms. Sage published in biMagazine, asume that it had been removed because it was pointing to wrong place, if it had been removed for some other reason please discuss CyntWorkStuff 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

two things

one, this is written like a record label bio-- to sell cds, or something. i also don't get why there's no mention of sexuality or anything in the article but it still is part of a series of articles on bisexuality? how does that make any sense? Lequis (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Sage is a well know bisexual[2] artist, but that is not to say she doesn't have great x-over apeal from what I understand. Sorry you don't like the tone, perhaps you might think of doing a rewite?CyntWorkStuff (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The new photo

The publicist has put on a new photo, but has not provided any information that it is freely distributable. K8 fan (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rachael Sage/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs birth data, references, and more specific biographical data. Badbilltucker 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Keeping private family information off the page

I work with Rachael Sage at her record label MPress Records, and I am here on her behalf to request that the private family information (i.e. the names of her parents) that keeps being re-inserted in the "Early Years" section remain permanently off this page. Her public identity is under the stage name "Rachael Sage", and by listing the names of her parents this reveals her legal name to the world - which is a breach of privacy, and also a safety and security issue for her as well. I understand that that information is sourced in the 2000 NY Times article that keeps being referenced, but that information should never have appeared in the Times in the first place. She has already had some issues arise from this information appearing on this page (which I have personally witnessed), and really needs this latest edit removing it to remain permanent. Thanks all for your understanding and discretion. Smoemeth (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Smoemeth, this is an encyclopedia, not Sage's website. Facts that are relevant and published about Sage will be relayed to the reader. Your participation will now be hampered by WP:Conflict of interest guidelines. You are not serving the reader; you are serving Sage. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Implying a COI is some sort of suicide pact is a bit much... I think it's reasonable to ask the question of whether it's necessary to include someone's parents in an article about them. That being said, the article on Stuart Weitzman (her father) lists Sage as his daughter, though I do realise it's using the same source and likely added by the same editor(s). Primefac (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I really am finding it hard to process that one single NYT article from 20 years ago which included a fact no one in the family wished to have publicized is going to supercede the security and privacy concerns of a public figure here. Is there really no recourse? Smoemeth (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm mostly in agreement with you, but I cannot make this change unilaterally and thus we need to have this discussion. I've cross-posted to BLPN in the hopes of drumming up some more participants. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If something's been published in the NYT it's not "private information". That said, the information is of nugatory encyclopedic value to this article so if removing it makes a living person's life better/safer then remove it, I say. Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. There are two sentences in the NYT article covering it, Jane and Stuart Weitzman, Greenwich residents who own shoe stores across the country, contribute models of shoes and boots designed by New York City students. Their daughter, Rachael Sage, also has a piece in the exhibition. Ms. Sage, a singer-songwriter who has just returned from a European tour, often paints the jeans she wears for her performance, and offers her signature version with sequins and squiggles. Although it passes WP:V, a single mention in a single source doesn't exactly prove WP:DUE, and if there's a legitimate concern from the subject about the information, there's no need to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources we are not required to include every little thing that has ever been written about a person's personal life. That said, the facts that the entire family is named in another family member's book (ISBN 9780525574552 page 125) and there are staged publicity photos of the family on Getty Images (all family members named) from 8 years later and a full-page mother-daughter photo with both person's names given on page 87 of the Spring 2012 edition of Q magazine, does complicate matters a little. If this were truly the case that it was mentioned just once in the New York Times 20 years ago and that was a mistake, this would be unequivocal. If the daughter or the parents were private individuals, likewise and absolutely. But those does not appear to be the case. Your thoughts in light of this, Primefac? Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm here mostly to facilitate discussion, though I do agree with your opening statement; if the subject is not keen on having the information present, and it's not otherwise relevant (such as it would be for an example like Miley Cyrus and her father) then it seems reasonable to acquiesce to their request for a bit of privacy. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The thing is that this information is not in any way relevant to her musical career -- which is the subject of the article -- so there is no reason for it to be there. I appreciate the efforts of those below who took time out of their day yesterday to dig up every single instance where she has been seen with her family in public and her legal surname mentioned in print, but the core of the matter is that the identity of her parents is not salient to the subject matter of this article and thus does not need to be included, and therefore really needs to be removed.

I understand that I am no longer allowed to make edits on this page because of my perceived conflict of interest, but I sincerely hope that reason will prevail here and Ms. Sage's needs and wishes will be honored and that information permanently removed. Smoemeth (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Weitzman family and Sage have already opted for less privacy, both having appeared in the 2012 photo in Q magazine and in the many Getty photos. They are not hiding the connection between Sage and the Weitzman family. Sage appeared prominently with her family at the grand opening of her father's NYC store in 2008,[3] and at his Beverly Hills opening in 2001.[4] Sage supported her mother's big book launch in 2013.[5] The idea is far-fetched that Sage does not want to be connected with her family. It's more likely that she prefers to focus journalist questions on her music. I do not support removal of the Weitzman family. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Stanford University published Sage's birth name as Karen Weitzman in 2000: "The Artist Formerly Known as Karen". The New York Times in 2002 published her family connection: "Rachael Weitzman, 29, a daughter of the shoe designer Stuart Weitzman... under the name Rachael Sage". It's not surprising to me that journalists have often made the connection, considering her famous family. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, that does put a different complexion on things. If the family link is not an obscure factoid that "should never have appeared in the Times in the first place", but a more widely known thing, then the case for removal become far less convincing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet again, I concur with Alexbrn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That fact is becoming more widely known by the day since it's now front and center on her Wikipedia page. It is not a fact that is salient to her musical career, and really does not need to be included. Smoemeth (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The article isn't about her musical career, it's a biography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Stanford published another piece in 2004, naming Sage as the former Karen Weitzman, Class of '93.[6] Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Since 1996, aged 24 or 25, Sage has released 14 studio albums on a fairly regular basis. She has had plenty of opportunity as a mature adult to weigh the dynamics of fame/celebrity vs privacy. As other editors have noted above, if the Weitzman family and Sage had wished the connection to remain more obscure, they could have done things differently. As it stands, it seems clear that we should be including her birth name and parents in her Wikipedia article, appropriately cited of course. Edwardx (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Include birth name?

I propose we take the next logical step and include Sage's birth name as it appears in sources.

I have not yet seen a WP:SECONDARY source that gives Sage's birth name in the form of first name / middle name / surname. There are several sources saying Karen Weitzman, and one saying Rachael Weitzman. The trademark registration of "Rachael Sage Productions" was filed by Karen R. Weitzman in 1995, shown in a few public filings online[7][8] which we cannot use as a source per WP:DOB because it is a primary source document. However, this stuff was compiled in books and published as a reference. The tome titled Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, volume 1262, number 4, shows on page 947 that Karen Weitzman is the owner of the "MPress Records" and "Rachael Sage" trademarks.[9] And the reference book series Brands and Their Companies by Gale Cengage (Edition 29, 2007, page 1531. ISBN 9780787689551) shows "Weitzman, Karen Rachael" as the holder of the trademark "Rachael Sage". Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)]

Thank you, Binksternet. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source ..." It looks like there is enough to support "born Karen Rachael Weitzman", and it is now largely a question of choosing the highest quality secondary AND primary sources whilst avoiding citation overkill. Edwardx (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, I went ahead and expanded the article with more sources, adding the birth name and some more interesting facts.[10] The bio has something of an empty space in its chronology, from 1996 to 2004, which could be expanded with songs, albums and appearances such as Lilith Fair. Perhaps her composition "Sistersong" can be added to the new list of feminist anthems,[11] if some uninvolved third party sources also call it a feminist anthem. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)