Talk:St. Jimmy

Refactoring discussion
An anonymous poster asked: ''I'm a lil disturbed about the article... what the hell makes you so sure that Saint Jimmy is the Alter Ego of Jesus?''

Someone else (also anonymous replied: I'm not a big Green Day fan and don't own this CD but after some research I would say it is a commonly accepted fact that S. Jimmy = Jesus of Suburbia but if you want to add a note saying the exact identity of St. Jimmy is unclear and disputed feel free. Metamagician3000 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Jesus of Suburbia MTV, "Tales of Another Broken Home" JOS cut his hand with a razor and wrote down "St. Jimmy" in the Bathroom stall.

Billie Joe & St.Jimmy/J.O.S.
have you ever noticed when Billie Joe Armstrong talks about eather of these characters it seems very personal, i don't know im wondering if eather of these characters (not saying their two people not saying their ore)are based on billie joe mike and tre or on someone they knew in the pasti've been wondering for while. if you listen to the song hashinka off of nimrod it kinda has some simalarties to Whatsername on American Idiot.

he explains this in bullet in a bible co'mmentary for a song--Greenday21 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

2nd Paragraph
Annonamous user with the IP 67.66.219.252 wrote a uncited, un-grammar checked, and in general badly written second spoiler paragraph. It claimed the band (Green Day) had said that St. Jimmy is in fact not JOS' alter ego. I deleted it, because it was not encyclopedic at all, and mostly because it had no citation. Also, Green Day rarely talks about the story aspect of American Idiot, leaving all interpretation up to the listeners, and them explaining how they feel about the story seemed uncharacteristic. So, because of this and the fact that it had no citation, I just deleted it. If 67.66.219.252 would like to re-write it and put it back with citation, they are welcome to. --Trogdor077 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

James Dean
Where the hell are the sources for this? ive never heard anything like this anywhere... itss not even mentioned in any of the other american idiot albums... TommyStardust 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where this comes from. I've removed it from the page for now, but will paste it below in case we can get some sources. Ajcham 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

James Dean interpretation
There are rumors that this song and the character of "St. Jimmy" in general represent 50's star James Dean. Believers point out the following correlations:
 * St. Jimmy shares the same first name as Dean
 * Boulevard Of Broken Dreams is a well-known print by Gottfried Helnwein depicting 1950s icons Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart, Elvis Presley and Dean in an all-night diner. (The print is based on the 1942 painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper.)
 * The lyrics of St. Jimmy describe teenage angst and rebellion against conservative social norms, similar to the contemporary persona of Dean.
 * And I'm here to represent / That needle in the vein of the establishment
 * A teenage assassin executing some fun
 * I'm the patron saint of the denial / With an angel face and a taste for suicidal

RFC
Since last few days, many reverts have occurred thus I wanted community's input. This song was not released nor did chart anywhere thus failing WP:NSONG. However, there is a lot of info which can possibly be added though it still fails NSONG. So, please do comment with relevant rationals either in support of oppose of inclusion. The details regarding info is here:. Thanks! — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC) vered by other artists", "other people have found this to be notable", etc.), but you can't fix these problems. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Clear breach of WP:EW by .  No need even for this rfc, just report him.Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit. I agree that we don't need an RfC, but for a different reason. Just frigging take this to AfD and don't pretend I'm the bad guy - I did everything I could to not edit war. The real dickish move is pretending you're going to nominate it for deletion and then redirect, just to piss me off. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 23:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "I did everything I could to not edit war." — That's the bullshit right there. You could have taken it to discussion yourself after the first revert, instead of continually restoring the article without discussion and without addressing any of the reasons it was redirected 2½ years ago. Instead you chose to edit-war, reverting 5 times in 2 weeks, and then had the gall to report TheSpecialUser & I to AN for the exact same behavior you were doing. Pot, kettle, black. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shut the fuck up. First I communicated through edit messages for the first couple reverts, then went to your talk page to discus an AfD, amicably. For a while it looks like you had abandoned the idea of redirecting, but then you went back at it without listening to me. The reasons it was redirected in the first place have been addressed, since it is much better sourced and passes WP:N. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 00:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch your tone, buddy. Two can play the report-the-guy-I-don't-like-to-AN game. I gave perfectly valid reasons on my talk page as to why the song doesn't pass WP:NSONGS, but you flippantly dismissed them. The reasons it was redirected haven't been addressed: The song wasn't released as a single, didn't chart, and hasn't received significant secondary source coverage apart from reviews of the album as a whole. Those are problems you can't fix. The song's place in the concept album, and the critical opinions of it, are already covered in whole at American Idiot. Given all that, there isn't enough to warrant a stand-alone article on the song. And for a song that's 8 years old, that situation's unlikely to change. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets see. NSONGS says: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song did chart (as the B-side to Jesus of Suburbia) and was covered by the Vitamin String Quartet and Italian band Finley. Thus it clearly passes NSONGS, but that is only a guideline. The real policy is WP:N, which states that if multiple reliable sources have covered something, it is presumed notable. PASS. What I still can't comprehend is why, if you feel so strongly about this being non-notable, why not just go for an AfD? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 02:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't chart. "Jesus of Suburbia" did. Notice that "St. Jimmy" is not listed at Green Day discography nor any other list of Green Day's charting songs including Allmusic or Billboard. Songs appended as b-sides to a single don't automatically chart along with the main song. That you imagine that to be the case demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how music charts work. The version of "St. Jimmy" on the "Jesus of Suburbia" single isn't even the album version, it's a live recording.
 * Being covered by other artists does not in and of itself constitute notability.
 * The only significant source coverage for this song is given in the context of the album as a whole, hence the song is covered within the album article. Mentions of the song within reviews of the whole album aren't sufficient to support a separate article on the song. Since "St. Jimmy" was never released as a single, and didn't chart, it isn't surprising that there are no sources whose coverage is devoted to "St. Jimmy" specifically; they all discuss it within a larger review of the whole album. By your logic, any song given specific mention in any album review would be eligible for its own article, which clearly isn't what NSONGS or N support.
 * I don't have to take it to AfD. You're the only one arguing to keep it as a stand-alone article, so you've got to show that it passes NSONGS, which you haven't done. Your arguments keep getting thinner and thinner while multiple other editors stand in opposition. An AfD isn't required.
 * In conclusion, FAIL. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, the NSONGS guideline that you seem to worship, even though it's just a guideline, clearly states that if a song has been independently released by multiple notable artists, it is presumed to be notable. You can't escape that St. Jimmy passes that. Second, from what I understand music charts track sales and radio airplay, therefore it usually lists the a-side as charting, even though, by default, the b-side is part of the single and is included. Plenty of b-sides have articles, and the guidelines do not really clarify if they are notable. Simply denying my points is the best example of calling the kettle black.
 * Oh and by the way, plenty of other people have found this to be notable, not just me. Look back in the article history for proof. I could tell them about this discussion, but I would probably be blocked for canvassing. so instead, I shall tell people at the NSONGS talk page about this discussion to clarify the guideline. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For lack of a softer way of saying it, you are completely incorrect about B-sides charting along with the main song. A single is a format of release: Songs chart, not singles. A song doesn't have to be released as a single in order to chart, for example. When a song is released as a single to promote an album (as "Jesus of Suburbia" was), there may be many different versions of the single with many different B-sides. The B-sides do not inherit the chart position of the main song. In other words, "St. Jimmy" and "Are We the Waiting" never charted. Feel free to ask any expert on music charts you wish, you'll get the same answer.
 * The fact that other artists have covered the song does not in and of itself equate to notability, particularly if there are few to no secondary sources discussing the significance of the covers. If all you can say is that the song was covered, you're not passing WP:N.
 * The most important factor, of course, is the secondary source coverage. "St. Jimmy" has not received significant secondary source coverage apart from coverage of the album as a whole. Its role in the album's narrative, and the critical opinions of the song, are already covered at the album article. Therefore there isn't enough significant source coverage devoted to this song to justify a stand-alone article, nor do we need one since the song is already well-covered within the album article.
 * You can keep thinning your arguments all you want ("It was co
 * You can continue to say my arguments are thin but you can't deny them. I can give you reliable sources for the covers, see this and this. Keep telling me these covers don't presume notability even though the guideline specifically says so. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Vitamin String Quartet is an artist that solely covers music so being covered by them wouldn't make a song notable. And the italian band Finley, did their cover occur on any of their products?Curb Chain (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And this doesn't even mention the song. Give us something to prove notability instead of slinging personal attacks.Curb Chain (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's weird. It probably is on some versions of the album and not others, see http://itunes.apple.com/ie/album/tutto-e-possibile/id204308843
 * Not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect - I can still give my views. There is no need of RFC that is obvious but I and IllaZilla were reported for EW while it was editorofthewiki who himself was doing it. I tried not to report him but when he reported us, I was little shocked and instead of making long comments, I felt that it'd be best to sort out things here. This article clearly fails WP:NSONG as it was never released nor did ever chart. The content included in the article itself is not enough notable to be here. I'll ask a full-protection of this redirect if the outcome is redirect. — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per the reasons's I've given above and on my talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge some of the content appears to be reasonably sourced. That content should be preserved on the main article if it is to be merged. I do not currently see that content - as such, if the content does not fit into the main article, a sub article on the song would be appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)