Talk:Demi Moore/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pittsburgh?

Why is the article tagged with, "Actors from Pittsburgh, PA?" Her birthplace says, Roswell, NM and Pittsburgh is not mentioned anywhere in the article. --Nels Beckman (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can tell everyone right now that Demi did not live in Perryopolis, PA for any extended time and certainly did not go to Frazier High School. I grew up there during those years and attended Frazier. I never saw her or even heard her name before. I would have been 1 year ahead of her in school and I knew everyone by name in that class. Someone is mistaken.

Demi is not short for Demetria

I changed Demetria to Demi. Demi stated on twitter "Demetria is a beautiful name. my full name though is actually just Demi" http://twitter.com/mrskutcher/status/2243267925—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.166.159 (talk • contribs)

You are right. I have changed the couple of places that you missed. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that that's her real Twitter? Or that she doesn't mean she's legally shortened her name to "Demi"? I ask because People Magazine states that "Demi Moore got her real name, Demetria, from a beauty product her mother saw in a magazine". A writer here cited an interview in McCall's as stating the same thing. All Hallow's (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am positive. The account has been verified by the Twitter staff. All those links mentions Demetria as a "fun fact", and there's not actually a quote saying that she has said it. In that Twitter response I think she makes it quite clear that Demetria has never been her name, or she would have made a mention of it. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you read the question here, it's even more obvious that she would have worded her response differently if she was indeed born with the name. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. All Hallow's (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore

I doubt very much that this statement is true:

Her half-brother, Michael Moore, once had a crush on her before it was determined they were related. He is famous for his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

First, Moore is not her birth name, but her married name from her first marriage. But Michael Moore was born Michael Moore, in Flint, Michigan.

Pregnancy and birth

Removed the following from the article:

She became widely known by posing nude while pregnant. She also hired three cameramen to film the birth of her first child.

Firstly, she was already a famous actress before did those nude shots IIRC. Secondly, the information that she did so is useless without context. Were they pornography appearing in a pregnancy fetish magazine? Were they private shots that somehow leaked out? Where, and why is it significant.

As to the second factoid, I hardly see why that is noteworthy. Lots of people videotape the birth of their child, and if you had Ms. Moore's financial resources, why wouldn't you hire professionals? --Robert Merkel 23:46 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hm. Very consistent reasoning here. I agree with all of the above. On the other hand, we could remove thousands of chunks of text containing that sort of "useless" information from as many articles for the same reason(s). Without getting too philosophical, any event between someone's birth and their death may be considered irrelevant and unimportant by others. --KF 23:53 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Her Vanity Fair cover is more famous than most of her movies. Definitely belongs in her bio. -- Someone else 00:03 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs in her bio with that extra detail. As to the second cut, my concern that the quote makes her, at first glance, look like some kind of kook when no such inference should really be taken. --Robert Merkel 00:07 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For some reason or the other someone wrote that Demi Moore had her PENIS removed in the second paragraph uncder early life. I attempted to edit it out under "Edit this page" but the part about her so-called PENIS is not on there. Can someone please find some way to take that off.

More nude photos

Not sure what they were for, but Ashton is pissed. They're pretty easy to get, just use google.

-G

Her late mother also did a nude photo shoot, for the porno mag HIGH SOCIETY, at around the same time - not a pretty sight.Dolmance 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scientology?

I see that Demi Moore is in a Category:Former Scientologists category. This got added on 23rd of June but there is absolutely no reference to Scientology in the text. Googling for this results in the big scientologist celebs FAQ and a whole slew of hits associating her rather with Kabbalah and the Kabbalah Center. (She's mentioned in both articles.) I know nothing about celebrity culture and can't edit this one sensibly, but if this category is going to remain, could someone put all this into some kind of context in the article itself?

Telsa 09:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that she was looking into it, but Bruce Willis discouraged her because he didn't want the kids growing up in the cult. Afalbrig (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dear Cathy

Hi Demi,

The abovementioned article was deleted in accordance to VfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Cathy.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

Can someone source this to a reputable source : "Demi is of French , Welsh and Cherokee Origin." Mad Jack 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this quote a little questionable?

She became well-known after a string of 1980s teen-oriented movies, and mutated into one of the best-known actresses in 1990s Hollywood.

From the opening paragraph. I'm fairly certain "...and mutated into one of the best-known acresses in 1990s..." was some covert vandalism done by a mischevious soul. While funny, I've changed the wording around somewhat to make it flow a little better. Shadowrun 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Joss Ackland's insult

The article claims Ackland and Demi co-starred in Flawless, a film in which neither actor appears. The film he mentions when making this comment--a film they both actually appear in--is Passion of Mind. Is this some sort of vandalism from bizarro land? Soy Keymaster 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the Joss Ackland insult, I agree that they did not star in the movie Flawless that the page is linked to; however, they do star in a movie of the same name Flawless (2007). So once again, same name but two different movies. Someone needs to change the link on both Demi's page and Joss Ackland's page.Kappaowl 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Decent picture

Come on surely someone can get a better pic, than that "true colour" one? It makes her nose look terrible. This women is like famous, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the pic. Ryan4314 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that picture had to be sought out, one of her worst and it hardly gives an accurate representation of how she usually looks. Someone spiteful? MakeshiftLEGEND 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles

Could you add her performance in Disclosure?

Clarifications regarding her first husband

This does not belong in the main article, however I'm posting it here because many websites (do a Google if you don't believe me) are making the statement that Demi Moore's first husband, Fred Moore, was a drummer for Bill Haley & His Comets. I only just discovered this rumor and it's pretty widespread. While Haley did in fact have a drummer by this name, this is a different man and there is no relation to Demi Moore. 23skidoo 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the dates of her first marriage. In the opening paragraph it is listed as 1979. In the personal life section is is listed as 1980. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.59.228 (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article states '79, Freddy's article states '80. In addition, sources disagree as to whether their divorce was in '84 or '85. Best name (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Ashton's age

Minor details, at the top of the page it states that Ashton is 15 years her junior, while in her personal life section states seventeen years her junior. It should probably be noted on what's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.79.148 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Her name is often mispronounced "DEM-ee", as in "demitasse." The correct sound is "De-MEE." NBK1122 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Is it just me or is the picture ridiculous..it would be like putting one up of George Bush and having his past on a blackboard behind him...why is Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis in a black and white photo shop behind Demi Moore? Seems very strange.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.45.157 (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible niece

Is Destiny Sue Moore (From Rock of Love 2) really Demi's neice, if so then this needs to be noted somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderman2351 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the young lady changes her name almost as often as she changes clothes, known variously as Destiny Moore, Destiny Sue Moore, Destiney Susan Moore, Destiny Wilson, Destiney Susan Walker, so it quite probable that she is not even named Moore in the first place. A quick scan of the search engines throws up no obvious mentions of Demi Moore being her aunt, so at present it would appear that apart from a vague physical resemblence anything further would be down to be pure conjecture or original research. No need for inclusion just yet. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Further note. The only mention of Demi being Destiney's aunt seems to have been sourced from here, Demi's wikipedia entry and was originally inserted unreferenced by an anonymous editor. From here it has now spread to three or four other web biographies that are outdated wiki mirrors. Until reliable reference and sourcing can be provided from a third party the repeated posting of the information should be considered suspect and deleted. 21stCenturyGreenstuff ([[User

talk:21stCenturyGreenstuff|talk]]) 12:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Emilio Estevez & Brat Pack

Why is there no mention in this article of her significant relationship with Emilio Estevez? Demi was a big part of his life and the Brat Pack scene, yet none of that is included in this article of her life. Needs to be added.

The state of the article

It could use some serious copyediting and restructuring. The biggest problem I feel is the repetition of words and lack of flow. I intend to work on it, but if anyone else wants to help, feel free. Nymf _talk/contr. 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Moore

I doubt very much that this statement is true:

Her half-brother, Michael Moore, once had a crush on her before it was determined they were related. He is famous for his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

First, Moore is not her birth name, but her married name from her first marriage. But Michael Moore was born Michael Moore, in Flint, Michigan.

Pregnancy and birth

Removed the following from the article:

She became widely known by posing nude while pregnant. She also hired three cameramen to film the birth of her first child.

Firstly, she was already a famous actress before did those nude shots IIRC. Secondly, the information that she did so is useless without context. Were they pornography appearing in a pregnancy fetish magazine? Were they private shots that somehow leaked out? Where, and why is it significant.

As to the second factoid, I hardly see why that is noteworthy. Lots of people videotape the birth of their child, and if you had Ms. Moore's financial resources, why wouldn't you hire professionals? --Robert Merkel 23:46 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hm. Very consistent reasoning here. I agree with all of the above. On the other hand, we could remove thousands of chunks of text containing that sort of "useless" information from as many articles for the same reason(s). Without getting too philosophical, any event between someone's birth and their death may be considered irrelevant and unimportant by others. --KF 23:53 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Her Vanity Fair cover is more famous than most of her movies. Definitely belongs in her bio. -- Someone else 00:03 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs in her bio with that extra detail. As to the second cut, my concern that the quote makes her, at first glance, look like some kind of kook when no such inference should really be taken. --Robert Merkel 00:07 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For some reason or the other someone wrote that Demi Moore had her PENIS removed in the second paragraph uncder early life. I attempted to edit it out under "Edit this page" but the part about her so-called PENIS is not on there. Can someone please find some way to take that off.

More nude photos

Not sure what they were for, but Ashton is pissed. They're pretty easy to get, just use google.

-G

Her late mother also did a nude photo shoot, for the porno mag HIGH SOCIETY, at around the same time - not a pretty sight.Dolmance 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scientology?

I see that Demi Moore is in a Category:Former Scientologists category. This got added on 23rd of June but there is absolutely no reference to Scientology in the text. Googling for this results in the big scientologist celebs FAQ and a whole slew of hits associating her rather with Kabbalah and the Kabbalah Center. (She's mentioned in both articles.) I know nothing about celebrity culture and can't edit this one sensibly, but if this category is going to remain, could someone put all this into some kind of context in the article itself? Telsa 09:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that she was looking into it, but Bruce Willis discouraged her because he didn't want the kids growing up in the cult. Afalbrig (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dear Cathy

Hi Demi,

The abovementioned article was deleted in accordance to VfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Cathy.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

Can someone source this to a reputable source : "Demi is of French , Welsh and Cherokee Origin." Mad Jack 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Demi Moore has a blood of being a Filipina. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donyapatty (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this quote a little questionable?

She became well-known after a string of 1980s teen-oriented movies, and mutated into one of the best-known actresses in 1990s Hollywood.

From the opening paragraph. I'm fairly certain "...and mutated into one of the best-known acresses in 1990s..." was some covert vandalism done by a mischevious soul. While funny, I've changed the wording around somewhat to make it flow a little better. Shadowrun 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Joss Ackland's insult

The article claims Ackland and Demi co-starred in Flawless, a film in which neither actor appears. The film he mentions when making this comment--a film they both actually appear in--is Passion of Mind. Is this some sort of vandalism from bizarro land? Soy Keymaster 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the Joss Ackland insult, I agree that they did not star in the movie Flawless that the page is linked to; however, they do star in a movie of the same name Flawless (2007). So once again, same name but two different movies. Someone needs to change the link on both Demi's page and Joss Ackland's page.Kappaowl 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Decent picture

Come on surely someone can get a better pic, than that "true colour" one? It makes her nose look terrible. This women is like famous, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the pic. Ryan4314 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that picture had to be sought out, one of her worst and it hardly gives an accurate representation of how she usually looks. Someone spiteful? MakeshiftLEGEND 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles

Could you add her performance in Disclosure?

Clarifications regarding her first husband

This does not belong in the main article, however I'm posting it here because many websites (do a Google if you don't believe me) are making the statement that Demi Moore's first husband, Fred Moore, was a drummer for Bill Haley & His Comets. I only just discovered this rumor and it's pretty widespread. While Haley did in fact have a drummer by this name, this is a different man and there is no relation to Demi Moore. 23skidoo 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the dates of her first marriage. In the opening paragraph it is listed as 1979. In the personal life section is is listed as 1980. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.59.228 (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article states '79, Freddy's article states '80. In addition, sources disagree as to whether their divorce was in '84 or '85. Best name (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh?

Why is the article tagged with, "Actors from Pittsburgh, PA?" Her birthplace says, Roswell, NM and Pittsburgh is not mentioned anywhere in the article. --Nels Beckman (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says "...once living in a small town called Rogers Manor, Pennsylvania." This is a small town near Pittsburgh, but overall not significant in her life, nor to Pittsburgh or PA. I am removing both templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That Moore lived in Rogers Manor in Charleroi, Pennsylvania and attended Charleroi Area Junior High for a year is easily verifiable [1] and should be included in an article that's a "definitive source for encyclopedic information" and not just B-Class. dissolve^talk 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Ashton's age

Minor details, at the top of the page it states that Ashton is 15 years her junior, while in her personal life section states seventeen years her junior. It should probably be noted on what's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.79.148 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Her name is often mispronounced "DEM-ee", as in "demitasse." The correct sound is "De-MEE." NBK1122 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Is it just me or is the picture ridiculous..it would be like putting one up of George Bush and having his past on a blackboard behind him...why is Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis in a black and white photo shop behind Demi Moore? Seems very strange.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.45.157 (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible niece

Is Destiny Sue Moore (From Rock of Love 2) really Demi's neice, if so then this needs to be noted somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderman2351 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the young lady changes her name almost as often as she changes clothes, known variously as Destiny Moore, Destiny Sue Moore, Destiney Susan Moore, Destiny Wilson, Destiney Susan Walker, so it quite probable that she is not even named Moore in the first place. A quick scan of the search engines throws up no obvious mentions of Demi Moore being her aunt, so at present it would appear that apart from a vague physical resemblence anything further would be down to be pure conjecture or original research. No need for inclusion just yet. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Further note. The only mention of Demi being Destiney's aunt seems to have been sourced from here, Demi's wikipedia entry and was originally inserted unreferenced by an anonymous editor. From here it has now spread to three or four other web biographies that are outdated wiki mirrors. Until reliable reference and sourcing can be provided from a third party the repeated posting of the information should be considered suspect and deleted. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The state of the article

It could use some serious copyediting and restructuring. The biggest problem I feel is the repetition of words and lack of flow. I intend to work on it, but if anyone else wants to help, feel free. Nymf _talk/contr. 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Daughters

What are her girls names? I know about Rumer, but what are the other 2 girls names? 10 year old star student.24.118.173.196 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE REQUIRED

she divorced apparently ... someone update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.78.198 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth Name: Demetria - Credible Sources and References

Demi Moore was indeed born Demetria Gene Guynes. Wikipedia has had this article on Demi Moore since 2003. Her name was always Demetria, until changed recently (without consensus). A more reliable source than twitter is People magazine - here is their bio on Demi Moore: http://www.people.com/people/demi_moore/biography which states her real name is Demetria Guynes. Credible Source and Reference: Here is a People Magazine interview with Demi from 1996 that gives family background and includes a quote from her on how she got her name: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20141624,00.html - Reference: June 24, 1996 Vol. 45 No. 25 "Eye of the Tiger" By Gregory Cerio - "Striptease's Demi Moore Knows What It Took to Get to the Top. Her Scarlet Letter Is 'A' for Ambition". The article states (QUOTE): "Moore was born Demetria Guynes in Roswell, N.Mex., and grew up as the older child, (half brother Morgan is now 28 and a film technician), of Danny Guynes, a newspaper ad salesman, and his wife, Virginia. (Her mother, Moore has said, got the name Demetria from a beauty product she saw in a magazine.)" People magazine directly quotes Demi as saying this. She never refuted this information, and indeed repeated it in other interviews. There are numerous interviews with her with many magazines and newspapers over the years all stating her born name as Demetria; if she had ever disputed her name, they would have printed a retraction. Here is another People article that gives her name as Demetria in 1998: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20125106,00.html "Scoop - Update Monday May 04, 1998 01:00 AM EDT" So, who knows why she all of a sudden decided to say on twitter that it isn't her birth name? But many celebrities claim things that are not true: their name, age, date of birth etc. Ok, Wikipedia editors, let's not be silly about this, ok? She was born Demetria Guynes. This has been undisputed information for over 20 years. Demi is quoted by many sources as saying her birth name was Demetria. I have quoted her bio and an article from 1996. I'll take People magazine over Twitter as a source any day. 68.125.68.38 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Demi is quoted by many sources as saying her birth name was Demetria. ... I am not seeing that, where has she said that? Youreallycan (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've edited what I believe is an accurate compromise that addresses both issues. High-RS cites such as Time Inc.'s People magazine and the venerable news syndicate Reuters cannot be summarily ignored. And a tweet by a celebrity has to be given due weight and no more. As now stands, the very first cite is Moore's tweet stating that Demi is her full name. The second sentence now says, "Some sources give her birth name as....", with four RS sources footnoted. That is 100 percent accurate, and it balances both sides' concerns without summarily ignoring one. Can everyone live with it as now written? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really - it looks like it has been an article from the People that have been repeatedly claiming and propagating this for a decade - I removed a couple of sources as not having the detail in it and the others , I don't think you had accessed? and then what I had left was a disputed birth name that did not belong in the lede - and I moved it to the early life section where it imo sits much better. Also as it appears to have only just been added - I would prefer you discuss it more here as it is clearly hotly disputed. Youreallycan (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't "hotly disputed". A recent tweet By Ms. Moore caused a single editor here to change her name. If we take everything "tweeted" as fact, soon all the articles will have false information, as this one now does. Kudos to User:Tenebrae for his really good edits and effort to show both sides; unfortunately User:Youreallycan seems to have a personal stake in this, as shown by his/her continued changes to my section title and now he/she has incorrectly added a statement that Ms. Moore denies validity of the People magazine article; she has never in fact done this. It's a waste of my time to debate this any further as unfortunately User:Youreallycan will continue to re-write the article as he/she chooses. Thanks for your good faith efforts User:Tenebrae, sadly, it was for naught. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And to User:Youreallycan - Stop changing my edit title on this talk page just because you don't like it or agree with it. Talk pages are for comments discussing the factual matters of an article, as mine does, and my edit title in the talk page ACCURATELY describes the section: Demi Moore's birth name IS Demetria Guynes and I AM providing Credible Sources and References. It isn't your place to change anyone's edits on a talk page. This harassing behavior from you needs to stop. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would ask, collegially, that Youreallycan discuss rather than edit-war.

• Removing two print citations because they are not online is improper; are you saying Wikipedia can never cite print sources?
• The Independent did mention the alternate name, spelling it "Demitria".
• The snarky, non-neutral WP:TONE taken in regards to People magazine — a reputable Time Inc. publication with scores of staff and fact-checkers — shows a slanted and a bias, both of which are improper per WP:NPOV.
• Moore's tweet is the very first footnote, giving it primacy without undue weight.
• And issues of birth name go in the lead, per consistency across the vast bulk of Wikipedia.

At least one other editor disagrees with Youreallycan's unilateral, summary ownership. Compromises can be tweaked, obviously, but to overhaul it in slanted way while removing print citations is not right. Let's discuss this rather than call in mediation or an admin over the OWN issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Which print sources have you accessed? Youreallycan (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to go on record as saying that I think that User:Tenebrae made excellent edits to the article on Demi Moore that were both comprehensive and impartial, and that they should not have been removed. I would suggest that the edits be reinstated. I have not edited the article since this debate began, but I would really like to see an accurate page on Ms. Moore, and think those edits would accomplish that. Thank you. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I poked around ancestry.com a bit. I don't see any info on Demi's birth record, but her 1987 marriage record to Bruce Willis says "Demi". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Who needs People Magazine when we have many sources over a 20 year period confirming that her birth name was Demetria? If she is really claiming that wasn't her birth name, then her publicists would have had many opportunities over the decades to set the record straight.

• Encyclopædia Britannica Almanac 2009
• The New York Times
• Action/spectacle cinema: a sight and sound reader
• Celebrity in the 21st Century: A Reference Handbook
• James Ulmer's Hollywood Hot List: The Complete Guide to Star Ranking
• The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2009
• A dictionary of first names
• Celebrities and Other Famous People Who Changed Their Name: Demi Moore to Gene Simmons
• The Cult of Celebrity: What Our Fascination with the Stars Reveals About Us
• You Couldn't Ignore Me If You Tried: The Brat Pack, John Hughes, and Their Impact on a Generation
• Arnold Schwarzenegger: a biography
• Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary
• Hollywood divas: the good, the bad, and the fabulous
• Tom Cruise: All the World's a Stage
• The Biography Channel Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are those sources getting their information? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Encyclopedia Britannica' isn't a reliable source? There's no requirement we post a link to a birth certificate for every Wikipedia biography.

Also: My own marriage certificate does not have my birth name on it. I didn't change my name; I just used my everyday name, which is the shortened form of my ethnic first name. That point really isn't relevant. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP's require a higher standard than just finding something. EB is not a reliable source for a fact that can't be verified directly, i.e. by a birth certificate. Maybe someone should look for her birth announcement in a local newspaper at the time. That would be at least as reliable as some external source that just copied it from somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require birth certificates under WP:BLP. C'mon.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires valid sourcing, and some external source's unattributed guess does not qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The current lede wording seems like a good compromise. With the number of sources saying her birth name was Demetria or Demitria, it makes no sense to not mention it at all, but if Moore herself disputes it, then it seems fine to say that as well. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's fine as is, with her own statement (along with other sources) as the primary, and the acknowledgment that some additonal sources have different info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So curious though that none of the online ancestry sites can throw up any New Mexico birth record for her either under Demi Guynes OR Demetria Guynes ... not even a D G Guynes. It does make one wonder if all of the proposed names are wrong! 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

More likely that NM is one of the states that doesn't make birth records available to sites such as ancestry.com. There's money to be made by holding onto that info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just asked editor Fat&Happy if he would discuss with me rather than reverting because, as I said in my edit summary, I think 2 tweets is repetitive and undue weight, and I think these are legitimate and articulately stated concerns. -108.21.104.134 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So 2 tweets are undue, but you can still use 4 sources for the other claim? That's some rather odd reasoning. Nymf _hideliho! 19:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that seems an unnecessarily harsh way to speak with another editor. From what I've been reading, you (Nymf) were saying those cites weren't enough, and now you're saying they're too many? That seems like odd reasoning on your own part. In any case, many editors are all OK with what people are calling the compromise version, and I was hoping to speak with Fat&Happy about one specific thing in this version. -108.21.104.134 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nymf's response above was spot on. And I'm at a complete loss trying to understand how it is remotely possible to give "undue weight" to a person's multiple statements about what their own name is. In fact, IIRC there was a third message of roughly similar content mentioned above. If so, that should be cited also to remove any inference of undue weight being given to a single comment which might be claimed to be the result of a misunderstanding. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's going to be impossible to get this article to a point where it's reliable and comprehensive - Nymf reverts anything that she doesn't like and doesn't allow anyone to edit it to present the materially clearly - best advice, just give up, lol. 68.125.68.185 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up, young one! Wikipedia is based on consensus and discussion. When you stop talking, you stop contributing. -Achowat (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Achowat. That's a very considerate thing to say, and I appreciate your politeness. -108.21.104.134 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Demi's "Oui" spread

There are numerous references that Demi Moore appeared in Oui magazine. LA Times Apr 14, 1991: "After posing for Oui magazine, she proceeded to land a plum role on the soap.." Philadelphia Inquirer April 21, 1991: "At 17, she landed on the cover of Oui magazine..."

Here's a free reference: Entertainment Weekly, 1995. "...she did discover 18-year-old Demi Moore, a novice actress whose only prior appearance seems to have been on the cover of Oui magazine." --The Cunctator (talk)

A single appearance on a magazine cover - one of hundreds - and you added the "porn" discriptive when her picture has nothing to do with porn - totally undue imo. Youreallycan (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This takes me back: I wrote for Oui in the 1980s, after the original publisher sold it. Their office was on the 60-something floor of the Empire State Building at the time.

"Cheesecake" and "porn" are obviously two different things, and neither adjective is necessary. The fact that one of her first professional gigs was as a magazine cover-model, though, should certainly be neutrally noted, I believe. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Youreallycan seems to be under the misimpression that the only photo of Demi in Oui was the front cover. The fact that her first professional gig was as a magazine cover-model for a full-frontal nude photo shoot, should certainly be neutrally noted. As Wikipedia notes, Oui is a pornographic magazine. Is "pornographic" better than "porn"? Is that the objection? --The Cunctator (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae's edit on this is very well done, btw. It would be nice to find a source that explains it was the January 1981 issue, but I suppose that's trivia. --The Cunctator (talk)

The citation says , but she did discover 18-year-old Demi Moore, a novice actress whose only prior appearance seems to have been on the cover of Oui magazine. - is this like some kind of thirty year old breaking news story?Youreallycan (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Cunctator. As I recall, having written for Oui, Genesis and Penthouse back in the day, the magazine industry refers to this segment as "men's sophisticate" magazines. (I was doing technology and film stories and actor/director interviews, BTW, not photographing models or anything.)--Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hear people read Oui for the articles. This is making miss Omni and Byte (I was too young for the "sophisticate" magazines). --The Cunctator (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, it took me 10 seconds to find a reference that Demi posed nude for Oui. Lovece, Frank (27 December 1992). "Moore's pursuit of her role". The Robeson. "youthful wild streak led her to pose nude while underage for Oui magazine" --The Cunctator (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Its your job to provide reliable external support for your desired additions - Thats the kind of external that you should have brought to the discussion instead of edit warring demi was in a porn mag into the article. Youreallycan (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for believing that the actual cover of the porn mag which featured Demi was reliable external support. I used that because that was more informative than other sources, which fail to mention the publication date of the Oui magazine in which she appeared. You have an extraordinarily low threshhold for what an edit war is. ---The Cunctator (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

From that article and from the filmography here both, it looks like Parasite (1982) was actually her second film, not her film debut. It's possible Parasite was filmed first, but unless we have something confirming that, Choices, which came out first (1981) would be her film debut. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Rebello interview (1993)

Q: Imagine that 20 years from now, you come across the entry for Demi Moore in an encyclopedia of movie stars. What does it say?

A: What I hope for is, "a real diverse, full body of work that shows growth." Work that could be looked on as courageous.[2]

Are we using the Stephen Rebello interview as a source? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We should: Direct quotes from that stage of her career provides perspective — though, sheesh, is she ever self-aggrandizing, and that first page is such a puff piece. (There's a vulgar term that journalists also use for that kind of compromised writing, but I won't say it here.)

Nice find ... and let's make sure it's archived at Archive.org or Webcitation.org. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Birth name

• - Birth name is Demetria Gene Guynes

People magazine's biography on Demi states her real name is Demetria Guynes. http://www.people.com/people/demi_moore/biography/0,,20006358_10,00.html
Many other sites also list her name as Demetria Gene Guynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.185.83 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See "Talk:Demi Moore#Demi is not short for Demetria". Nymf _hideliho! 12:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, the consensus was that her real name is Demetria. 68.124.177.160 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Nymf _hideliho! 16:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Her name is well known, it is in literally thousands of sites on the internet, it was said to be Demetria by her mother in interviews and by Demi herself in early interviews. I have a copy of People magazine from years ago that gives her name as Demetria. Because Demi now wants to say she is "Demi" does not mean it is true, anymore than an actress who claim to be younger than she is, anymore than if Miley Cyrus says she was born Miley (she was born Destiny Hope Cyrus and legally changed her name - that does not mean it wasn't her birth name) Boooo to wikipedia for allowing a handful of stubborn people to keep changing this well known and factually correct information to something inaccurate. I won't change it again, the wrong information can stay there making Wikipedia look unreliable, but it's really a shame that a few uninformed people insist on changing Demi's Moore's birth name to something it definitely is not. 68.124.177.160 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Me and several others have scoured the Internet, and have not been able to pull up a single reference where she states that her name is Demetria. We do, however, have one where she states that her name has never been Demetria. Until you can find one that trumps that one, the article should not be changed. Nymf _hideliho! 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Faulty logic. I just gave an example above - if an actress claims to be younger than she is (which many do) it is not proof that she is - we use source documents for that. One example of this is in the Nicki Minaj article here on Wikipedia - she gives her age as 26 in an interview, yet the police report has a different birth date, making her 28. The police report was taken as credible evidence, as they most likely required evidence and took her date of birth from her driver's license. I don't have the time or inclination to research Demi's birth certificate, school records, etc., I am not that interested, but don't you think it is is very odd that literally thousands of sources state that her birth name is Demetria and over the years none of them have ever printed a retraction or objection from Demi? Where do you think that info came from? Wikipedia editors have an obligation to have factual information in articles, you are not upholding that obligation. How ridiculous that Wikipedia is the only place that says her birth name is "Demi" not "Demetria" - it really makes this site unreliable. 68.124.177.160 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And to clarify, her twitter tweet does NOT say "My name has never been Demetria" as you claim above. It says "my full name is Demi" - this does not indicate her birth name was not Demetria (it was). If you are going to quote her, at least get the quote right. 68.124.177.160 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read tweet that she replied to. Nymf _hideliho! 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nymf, of course I read Demi's tweet. The simple fact is that she does NOT say her name has never been Demetria. Here is the twitter link (copied from above post): http://twitter.com/#!/mrskutcher/status/2243267925 and quote of the full tweet: "Demi Moore !@GirlWithoutFear Demetria is a beautiful name. my full name though is actually just Demi!" - so where in this tweet does she say that her name HAS NEVER BEEN DEMI ? It doesn't. If her full name is now Demi, this does not mean her birth name was not Demetria. Just like Miley Cyrus can truthfully say "my real name is Miley" - it is, because she had it legally changed to Miley Ray Cyrus. This does not change the fact that Miley she was born Destiny Hope Cyrus. Demi Moore was born and christianed Demetria Gene Guynes. You cannot choose to singlehandedly change Demi Moore's birth name without any proof - when literally thousands of Magazine articles and online sources state her birth name was Demetria. I am correcting the article, do not change it again. 68.124.176.196 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the tweet which she replied to. It is deleted now, but it went something along the lines of "My name is Demetria too," and in return Demi Moore replied that her full name is just Demi. Nymf _hideliho! 20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Twitter is not a WP:RS. The threashold for inclusion is WP:V, not truth. The name should say what the reliable sources say, magazines, newspapers, legal documents, etc. Not Twitter. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added three references for the name "Demetria". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that her Twitter is verified, it is reliable. Find some legal documents, rather than these news articles which never quotes her, and then we'll see. Nymf _hideliho! 20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And here we have it. Quoting: "Demi is the name I was born with!". Nymf _hideliho! 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Another tweet here. Nymf _hideliho! 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet another one here. Nymf _hideliho! 20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• - I have removed it - it was only added today and we have had an article for years - it's not breaking news is it? and is hotly disputed - please don't replace it without consensus support. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Other than her recent Twitter tweet, Can you show ANYWHERE else at any time where Demi claimed her birth name was not Demetria? I can show where she verified that her birth name IS Demetria in 1996. I have included links to two People magazine articles below, one is from 1996 which DIRECTLY QUOTES Demi saying that her birth name is Demetria, and why her mother named her that. There are other interviews that quote her on her name, I will certainly research them as well if you insist on this ridiculous and inaccurate change to her birth name, not because I particularly care about Demi Moore's birth name; but I do care about Wikipedia having CORRECT, FACTUAL information so it can continue to be seen as a CREDIBLE and RELIABLE source of information. 68.125.68.38 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes are contained in quotation marks. What you are referring to are not direct quotes. Yworo (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An attempted correction to the birth name

See this revision for an attempted correction of the birthname, which puts Moore's revisionistic tweet where it belongs, in a footnote. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demi_Moore&oldid=463897821 I have no interest in getting in an edit war; the time has passed when I believed Wikipedia was capable of being saved from the entropic weight of cruft. --The Cunctator (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The living subjects statement is relevant as, relevent as celebrity reports that dispute it. Youreallycan (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob, virtually every interview and biography lists "Demetria" as her birth name. Notable Hollywood biographers list "Demetria" as her birth name. Why is it then, in her 30 year career, Moore has never once disputed it in print? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You would have to ask HER that question. Meanwhile, if the allegedly "reliable" sources can't even decide whether it's "Demetria" or "Demitria"... what's wrong with this picture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How many sources use an alternative spelling? One? Two? How many spell it consistently? 50? 100? The only thing wrong with this picture is that 1) you are ignoring the secondary sources, and 2) you are interpreting a Twitter feed. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of concrete evidence, such as a birth certificate, Demi's own statement trumps any so-called "reliable" sources, who typically parrot each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico does not make birth certificate info public.[3] Unless one of the so-called "reliable" sources can be independently confirmed to be correct, then they cannot be considered valid. If you can find a source where Demi herself explicitly states that Demetria is actually "the name she was born with", then you'll have something. Otherwise, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia interpretations of Twitter feeds do not take priority of 100 different sources listing Demi Moore's name as "Demetria". Further, we have secondary sources that specifically say "most" sources list her name as "Demetria". Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Demi is the name I was born with" is unambiguous to anyone who speaks English natively. And unless we know where those "sources" got their own info, it can't be considered reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A Twitter feed is not "unambiguous", nor could it be given the context. I don't even think you know what "unambigious" means. If it was unambiguous, we would have, within the last three decades, at least one source that says, "I was not given the name Demetria at birth." For some strange reason, we don't have that refutation, and secondary sources have noted it: "Moore hasn’t yet disputed the story that her mother named her after seeing a magazine ad for a shampoo brand called Demetria."[4] Yes, "Demi" was the name she was born with, but the question is whether her full name was "Demetria". You don't have very much experience with women, do you Bugs? :) Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"[X] is the name I was born with" is unambiguous. It does not require interpretation. Unless there is a valid source that confirms her birth name is "Demetrias" or "Demitrias" or whatever, rather than merely speculating on it or parroting other alleged sourcesd, then her own word is the best evidence you have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Time Inc. and other major publishers did research and reporting, had fact-checkers, had editors, and as pro forma with any professional journalistic organization confirmed its facts. They reported this name well before the Internet, giving her many years to request a correction/retraction. Please don't insult the entire journalistic profession by calling such organizations' reporting "speculation" or "allegations." Even a person's own claims on Twitter can be given only so much weight because people lie. Should we throw away all of Woodward and Bernstein because Nixon claimed "I am not a crook"?

In any case, the compromise version addresses all concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The compromise version, in which it says "many", certainly seems sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, believe me or not, but I interviewed Moore when A Few Good Men came out, and both she and the movie's press kit both lied and said she never did Piranha Parasite. By the way. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not seeing any evidence that she was in Piranha (1978 film). Feel free to present some, as I might have overlooked something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. You knew very well I meant Parasite. Being a smart-ass isn't constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't know any such thing. I am not a historian of her career. Although it's becoming clearer why you might think "[X] is the name I was born with" is somehow ambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

In that interview, did you ask her what actual name she was "born with"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comment immediately above. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one, in particular? You're not making any sense now. And if her birth name was "Demetria", then she was not "born with" the name "Demi", she was "born with" the name "Demetria". She says her birth name was "Demi", and you have offered no actual evidence to the contrary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One might likewise say to you, "Prove she's not lying, as actresses often do." But it doesn't matter: Numerous reliable-source outlets, including magazines published by Time Inc., as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica, have reported, fact-checked and had legal-department vetting, as such major organizations always do, that her birth name is Demetria. If you think an admin won't consider that sufficient sourcing, go ahead and call one.

In the meantime, numerous editors worked long and hard to reach a compromise wording that makes accurate statements and balances the different viewpoints. Unless you've got a direct line to God and Truth, your view has no more weight than those of other editors here who point to RS cites and reach a different conclusion than you. Unless you consider yourself infallible and above question, please have respect for other views besides your own.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They can't have "fact-checked" her name unless they have access to her birth certificate - which they don't. And considering your bad-faith, vulgar comments directed at me, you're in no position to be lecturing anyone about their behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One can fact-check in a number of ways, including asking a subject's relatives. Your lack of knowledge about professional journalism makes it hard to have an intelligent conversation about the subject.

As to "vulgar," I believe you're misusing the word; you might want to look up the definition. As to bad faith, I disagree: You are speaking as if you and you alone know The Truth. I'm not sure how any human being here can claim that he or she is indisputably right and legions of journalists, editors and others are wrong.

Judging from the lack of response by the many other editors who have worked on this article, there's no consensus to change the compromise version. You and I talking in circles is accomplishing nothing. At this point, I suggest you call for an WP:RfC, since no one else is clamboring to change the wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as we stay away from POV wordings such as this, I don't have the energy to further improve upon it. That's just why I am quiet, anyway. It doesn't mean that I generally agree with including "Demetria". Nymf _hideliho! 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I, and I'm sure others, appreciate your reasonable and civil stance. Others feel the lead should say Demetria unequivocally, and were not saying that, either. That's the nature of compromise; everyone gets something, no one gets everything. And thank goodness for that. It means Wikipedia works better than Congress.   :)  --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote on The Crunctator talk page: I understand your point, and I personally feel the long-form birth name is adequately cited. But Wikipedia works on consensus and compromise — just because I and a certain number of other editors believe it's adequately cited doesn't mean that a certain number of additional editors agree. The compromise wording, which is accurate and neutral as far as it goes, is the end result of much discussion by several editors in an effort to reach wording that addresses both sides' concerns. I'm not sure there's any alternative way to do it; certainly, edit-warring isn't an answer. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, how hard is it to spell Cunctator? The compromise wording is inaccurate and biased. But hey, appoint yourself consensus overlord and make reversions on behalf of people you disagree with to keep inaccurate and biased material on Wikipedia. Cheers. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

aboutself

Just passing through and thought I'd drop a link to WP:ABOUTSELF because it seems quite pertinent and I haven't seen anyone mention it. It states explicitly that Twitter can be used as a source in some cases—in my opinion, this one--Taylornate (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know, and it's nice of you to offer a constructive link to a policy/guideline. No one in the discussion has questioned the validity of using her tweet, however, but simply how much weight to give it: complete, total, 100 percent weight, or weight balanced against a multitude of WP:RS sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A newspaper from 1997 wrote that Moore said her name, Demetria, came from a beauty product.[5] They seem to have got that in turn from McCall's in 1996: "She was born to a teenage mother, Virginia Harmon, in Roswell, NM, a poor, rural whistle-stop, and christened Demetria after a beauty product her mother had seen in a magazine." (OR: I can't find any evidence of a 1960s beauty product called "Demetria"). The earliest source I can find for Demetria as her name is from 1991 (a Google Books snippet), something called "Newsmakers 1991": "Full name, Demetria Gene Guynes Moore; born in Roswell, New Mexico, c. 1963; stepdaughter of Danny (a newspaper reporter) and daughter of Virginia (King) Guynes; married Freddy (some sources say Rick) Moore (a musician)."[6] Fences&Windows 22:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That McCalls article is worth looking for — nice digging to find the original source! The "Newsmakers" listing seems more iffy, as you sort of note. The "circa 1963" and "some say Rick" in that source indicate it was simply compiling information from outside sources and not verifying. But, yeah, McCalls — might be time to hit the library microfiche (do they still have those?), since there's still an awful lot in print that ain't on the 'net! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh this gets better and better; it opens up the possibility of a possible birth name of Demi/Demetria Harmon/King/Guynes or any combination thereof 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, the McCall's source seems very late to the party; I've seen relevant sources dated much earlier. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of the anecdote where there's one child who wants a piece of pie all to himself, and another child who wants to share the piece. The parent makes them compromise by giving 3/4 of the piece to the first child and 1/4 of the piece to the second.

I'm also reminded of "compromises" by intelligent design advocates who say "well, yeah, intelligent design requires faith, but evolution requires faith too."

This issue is not really amenable to compromise. The "compromise" is literally accurate, but instead of giving a completely wrong impression it just gives a half-wrong impression. It's utterly insane that when a person tells us what their own name is, we should treat that on the same level as a secondary source. This is a case where we need to go by the primary source, not to "compromise" away BLP. If it violates the sourcing rules, then use WP:IAR; this is what it's there for. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but primary sources can lie. That's why secondary sources are important. If we were to believe every actress about her age, they'd all be 29. Nixon denied Watergate. Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman. And sometimes a primary source simply doesn't know herself; how many of us have seen our birth certificates? Believing a primary source blindly, unquestioningly: That's not how journalism works and it certainly shouldn't be how an encyclopedia works — because it's not "the first draft of history," as journalism is called, but is the historical record, and so has a higher standard that journalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's possible for primary sources to lie, but it's also possible for secondary sources to lie (or rather, to just fail to fact-check properly). Your belief that there's a greater chance that the primary source is lying than that the secondary source is lying (or failed to fact-check) defies common sense and appears to be mainly based on unquestioning belief in Wikipedia's statements about why secondary sources should be preferred. Those statements are not gospel and shouldn't be treated as such; that's why we have IAR. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it as a journalist myself who has seen firsthand how stringent the fact-checking and editorial vetting process is at Time Inc. No responsible editor would take an actor's statement at face value (or a politician's or anyone else's, for that matter) without seeking secondary confirmation. That's Journalism 101. While I've never worked with Encyclopædia Britannica, it would seem to defy common sense, to me, to just assume that this encyclopedia, with its nearly 250-year reputation for accuracy, should not also be given substantial weight. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the ONLY site that says "Demi Moore disputes her birth name is Demetria". IN fact, I don't believe she has disputed it. If you Google "Demi Moore", there are thousands of sites all saying "birth name is Demetria Gene Guynes" and not a single other site claiming that she disputes this fact, which has been reported for more than 25 years by many reputable publications. I don't know on what basis someone changed her Wikipedia article, but I really don't think it should stand as it is worded now, as it makes Wikipedia look downright unreliable. 68.122.12.99 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

While I personally also believe that her birth name is Demetria or Demitria, according to WP:RS citations, the fact is that she has disputed this on her own Twitter page, at posts to which this article links.

The subject's own words can't be discounted. Neither can they be given undue weight. The current phrasing balances out the valid concerns of different editors. You or I may not agree, but we have to respect them, since neither we nor they have any special insight into Truth. All we can do is say, "These reliable sources say these things," and leave it to the reader to draw conclusions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Much respect to you for sure, and I appreciate your attention to what is a fairly minor issue, but.... on the Nicki Minaj talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicki_Minaj#Age - an editor (who has made contributions since early 2006) states: "Stating your age is not a WP:RS" and they then use a source that puts her age at 28, not 26 as she herself has stated. So, when do we take their word for it, and when do we not? Just curious. I'd like to see consistency. I also think it's giving Demi's Twitter "tweet" undue weight - many celebrities use publicists or assistants to tweet for them (as Ashton Kutcher has said he will be doing in the future) perhaps that person got it wrong? Unless Demi says "I refute the People magazine article and all other interviews I've given in the past 25 years that give my birth name as Demetria" can we really say, she "disputes" it? 68.125.129.190 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words; it's always good to collaborate with collegial editors.

These things go both ways, when it comes to a person's own claim. Giuliana Rancic, for instance, has just given her age as a year older than was previously reported. There rarely are one-size-fits-all answers, and given the infinite variety of people and of secondary source-quality, it's hard to imagine we could create one. In this case, we don't know if Moore herself is tweeting or an employee under her direction; I'm not sure if that matters any more than with a speech writer writing the president's speech — the person under whose name it's delivered takes responsibility. And we can't really go by what someone hasn't said; all we have is what they have said. Demi Moore has never said, to give a wild example, "I don't object to snakes eating babies." But that doesn't mean she's in favor of snakes eating babies.

The fact is, we just don't know. And while I personally agree with you, Wikipedia works by compromise and consensus, simply because we don't always know. We're giving her personal statement no more or less weight than an opposite statement; I honestly don't think that's undue.

And in a more practical sense, by simply giving all sides and letting the reader draw a conclusion, this compromise — which is completely accurate, as far as that goes — avoids an edit-war, which is what was happening before. And nobody wants that. I don't. I'm sure you don't. Perhaps there are other ways of presenting this that all sides can live with. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of other sources to consider; The Cedar Rapids Gazette, 14 Dec 1996 - The letters page has a request as to how demi got her name. An interview with Demi is paraphrased where she has told the Demetria cosmetics story. Note in early interviews (This, Mccalls) she says her name comes from Demetria Cosmetics. In later interviews Such as [ http://www.imnotobsessed.com/2010/12/31/demi-moore-was-named-after-make-up/] she says it came from part of the Demetria cosmetic name. The Vallley Independent, 15 NOV 1995 - a childhood friend cites her birth name as Demi and discusses growing up along side her. I'm sure there's more to be found when I raised the Newsmakers 91 entry (which appears to be a published research work by the makers of the Macmillan encyclopaedia) it was pointed out that it's sources all come from newspaper articles so there must be an earlier newspaper claim than 1991 that we don't have access to. It should also be easy for an editor in New Mexico to check the birth announcements of the Roswell Daily Record from 1962. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Y'know ... this is just my supposition, but it's something to think about. At the previously mentioned gossip site here, Moore is quoted as saying, "My mother named me Demi – which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up." This may explain the dissonance: She may indeed have been named after a makeup line called Demetria, but her mother may only have used that name as the inspiration for "Demi".

This could explain Moore's apparent past comments that she was named after a makeup line — something that could be true and still mean that her birth name was "Demi."

Since, as I said, this is OR analyses, perhaps the best thing we can do is find her earliest direct quote on the subject, and see exactly and precisely what she said. Perhaps we should see her quote in this new light. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vegan

Please, someone replace a dead link to Mario Testino photo shoot with http://www.mariotestino.com/file/1742 --Точки над Е (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Post Protection Break

• Due to the ongoing edit war I've just protected the article for three days. I'm thinking about removing the contested bits of info, in the interim, because of BLP-concerns, just to err on the safe side, but I'd rather gather some opinions in order not to act too unilaterally... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd pop down to Roswell and take a look at her birth certificate, but as everyone knows, the original certificate was abducted by aliens. :-) Yworo (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My ever so humble opinion, I've suggested at the bottom that the mention should only go in a footnote - actually this was AndytheGrump's suggestion on BLPN and many thanks to him for it - However I would accept Youreallycan's suggestion of mentioning it in the body on the condition that the weight of the discussion is moved from the fact there is a dispute onto the fact that she was notably named after a line of 1960s cosmetics. something like "Moore's mother named her after a range of cosmetics that she had seen around the time of Moore's birth. Some sources such as people magazine have suggested that her birth name was identical to the name of the cosmetic line "Demetria"; but Moore has corrected this saying that only part of the name was used." In neither case would I support this being kept in the lead. I've also added the NYT to the lead as a reliable secondary source supporting the Demi Birthname this could be moved to the infobox and I'm quite happy to discuss better alternative sources to support the same information. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly go along with Stuart.Jamieson's sentence, or a slightly trimmed version for language and precision. (People and others didn't "suggest," for example, but stated it plainly.)

If this helps move things along, please know tht I have not advocated for this information in the lead ever since two editors moved it into the body, so for my part there's no argument there.

Also, while I haven't looked, if the NYT cite is this, that's actually to All Media Guide, from which the Times buys content. I've generally seen that footnoted as "All Media Guide via The New York Times". And just to show I'm not crazy, that source also gives Demetria as an alternate name. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Stuart, your sensible suggestion may help resolve things at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Demi Moore. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it won't. ARBCOM doesn't rule on content issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's completely missing the point. The point is that he suggests a compromise that address the various parties' issues, and the specific place where it's worked out doesn't matter. Unless someone is an intransigent hardliner, who could object to working out an accurate compromise that addresses legitimate issues and concerns? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And how does your abuse of process at ARBCOM assist in 'compromise'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As for 'popping down to Roswell', sadly, even if this wasn't WP:OR it would be a waste of time (though I'm sure its an interesting place to visit). With Bugs and Trovatore's help, I've ascertained that Demi's birth certificate wouldn't be available to members of of the public - or to 'fact-checkers' for that matter: "State law restricts access to the registrant's Immediate Family members or those who represent tangible proof of legal interest in the requested record". [7] Of course, this doesn't prove that a researcher hasn't seen the document - but it implies that they may very well not have done - I'm sure that journalists don't refrain from asserting that people have names, even if they've not seen the certificate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, NM state records are kept in Santa Fe anyway. I just wanted to make a joke about it being abducted by aliens. :-)

They are kept in Santa Fe, I think, to make sure the state policy in enforced. Experience suggests that if they were kept in the county records, all it would take to get a look at it would be to file a "Form 20" or maybe a "Form 50". Yworo (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about NM, but in many other countries/states though the records are available only to immediate family only, The Indexes to the records are publicly accessible - this only gives the full birth name, mothers maiden name, D.O.B, and the record/page number of the full certificate. These are often scanned in by companies like ancestry.com and sold at a premium but can still be viewed at county records, etc. That said there will be other Primary records in Roswell that can be checked for birth announcement in the Roswell Daily Record and/or the paper that Danny Guynes worked for at the time. Baptism records with local churches and so on... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• - Lets forget the arbitration request, it was as is clear from the comments there, premature. - although there is a worthy offer from User:Dweller to mediate and a couple of worthwhile comments to take on board from the Arbs. - if we can't get a resolution in the near future I suggest taking him up on the offer. Can we please focus on the content issue and come to a compromise consensus. As there is not really anyone supporting a return of the disputed content to the lede we only have three options, if user would state which one they are supportive of, we can they discuss tweaking the content , that is unless consensus is to remove. The options seem to be, one - remove completely, two - keep some form of the content as is in the early life section, three - remove from the early life section and add a link in the lede to a note with some similar wording about the disputed names. So as to see if there is any support for it, four - return the disputed content to the lede. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While it would be nice to 'forget the arbitration request', until that is closed, I can see no reason to take any claims by Tenebrae that he wants 'compromise' seriously. While much of the arb request relates to content (outside their remit), there are also conduct issues raised - and if they are to be taken further, I will of course respond by raising Tenebrae's conduct in turn. I'm not prepared to 'negotiate' with that hanging over us. In any case, as I've already made clear, I see no reason whatsoever how more than a brief footnote on the matter of questions over Demi's 'actual' name can be justified - and that needs to be worded in such a way as to avoid any implication that Demi might lie about her own name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

References

-->

Or something similar; maintaining a footnote about the name differences between sources but not debating it in the lead. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, it seems a little clunky to have a footnote to Notes footnoted to References, doesn't it?

I'll hunt for his comments, but if you have a link, that'd be great! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding his comments at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Could they be somewhere else? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The link to the BLP Noticeboard discussion on 7 December is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=464549052#Demi_Moore.27s_birth_name

What Jimbo Wales actually said was “I think our current version is silly and a BLP violation to boot. We say "though disputed by Moore,[1] many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria.[2][3][4][5]". That makes it sound like we don't believe her. And having this as the second sentence of her biography gives this total non-issue way too much weight!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)”

Although slightly awkward I feel Stuart JaMieson's suggestion has some merit and does address Jimbo's concerns. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there are many other articles that use cited refs within footnotes, but it does happen(e.g; Plesiorycteropus) and there's plenty of information on using it in places like WP:REFNEST. Altering my last comment I would probably consider moving Gene to the footnote as well as it mainly appears to exist in sources that use Demetria - One copy of her high school yearbook picture is a notable exception but that source is too unreliable to use without checking the actual yearbook. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen the current Noticeboard discussion. Jimbo made one comment. Then Stuart.Jamieson and AndyTheGrump got into a long discussion, on opposite sides.

Now, I happen to agree with Stuart.Jamieson's pointing out that reliable-source secondary citations have to be given great weight. The fact that AndyTheGrump uses uncivil language and becomes angry is of concern, since being insulting and emotional is the opposite of being calm and rational, and it's calm and rational discussion that's the most informative and constructive. I also find AndyTheGrump's assertion that, in essence, journalists aren't to be trusted is an overly broad, hugely inaccurate, and certainly paranoid-sounding idea.

However, I have to ask whether Jimbo really is suggesting that we disregard RS secondary sources such as Time Inc. (People) and the Encyclopædia Britannica, and that using such sources violates BLP? Are we really convinced that he believes that, or that, busy as he is, he gave the article a cursory glance without looking at the high-RS secondary sources being quoted? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say J Wales simply said it as it is, or at least his vision of wikipedia and articles about living people. This crap about her name is demeaning to the subject has nothing to do with her notability and hair splitting over it is destructive to the project. The project will be destroyed from inside by such as this minor worthless disputes that have no educational value at all. Ow, ya know that actress, the really famous one, well, some sources say her birth name was bla and some say its bla bla and she says it was just Demi, really that is interesting and informative (not).....Youreallycan (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid overview about what seems to be a larger issue, though I'm not sure that quite all that can be read into his short comment.

On a more prosaic, practical level about this specific article, we might want to focus our discussion on the validity of the secondary sources. For myself, I believe someone's name is a very important biographical detail. If we agree that the likes of Time Inc. and Encyclopedia Britannica are valid, then relegating them to fringe status in a buried footnote seems problematic. We need to put our heads together and devise an accurate, elegant solution, and that's going to require serious, sober, focused discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Jimmy is simply alluding to a common sense approach with his deeper understanding of what is truly beneficial to the projects long term continuation, as to what is actually worthwhile disputing in regard to living people. As for you claim that after massive wasted time and bytes about this and your claim that more "serious, sober, focused discussion" is needed to resolve this trivial issue that common sense just removed the trivial disputed content, ...tch, ,, enjoy yourself, but it will not benefit the projects aims and ambitions, in fact, imo , such as this bloated worthless dispute is destructive to the project. Youreallycan (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, no one person, not me, not you, can claim we and only we know what "common sense" is in a given situation. I'm sure that to a journalist who has interviewed and reported on her and has had the material fact-checked and vetted by editors, "common sense" would be to use the reported name.

Some may believe knowing a person's birth name is trivial. Judging from the efforts made by historians writing books to find vital records and give that information, I think it's fair to say that many historians would not find this trivial. We're each entitled to our personal point of view, but not to say that our point of view is the only one that's right of common-sensible.

In any case, a little further up the page I've made an observation that might shed some insight into how these seeming contradiction occurred, and hopefully can help wrap this up. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Stuart.Jamieson re: "I would probably consider moving Gene to the footnote as well as it mainly appears to exist in sources that use Demetria"

No need:

• "it's just Demi Gene Guynes "
• "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!"
• "...it is Just Demi Gene Guynes but thank you"

Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On that basis it may need to be explained within the footnote that media sources use "Demetria Gene" and that the twitter account affirms Gene but not Demetria... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We currently have Youreallycan trying to unilaterally change the compromise version to his own POV, which is "Demi." Other editors believe it's "Demetria." There is no consensus for one or the other, so I believe it's improper for this editor to try to change the lead to his own POV. I'd like to have other editors comment, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the long discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Demi_Moore.27s_birth_name. There is nothing 'unilateral' about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that discussion. User:Stuart.Jamieson there among others disagrees with you there. So you have simply put your own POV despite mountains of reliable, journalistic evidence, as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica, that says otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Either take part in the discussion, or stop waffling on about POV. It is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to put an accusation that Demi is lying about her name into the article lede - and it would still be, if it were verifiably true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're misusing "waffling." Regardless, as I have said, editors at the noticeboard disagree with you. Your saying that you know better than Time Inc., the Encyclopedia Britannica and other valid journalistic and encyclopedic sources both amazes and appalls me. And your characterization of anyone who disagrees with you as accusing her of lying — as opposed to being mistaken, or not knowing (how many of us have seen our birth certificate?) or any number of other reasons is remarkably tarring with a broad brush anyone who disagrees with your POV about her name. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• - The good faith edit that removed the disputed personal detail from the lede to the early life section has multiple benefits - no detail is lost at all - the primary benefit is the disputed personal detail is moved from the lede to the early life section where it sits better, with less weight - considering WP:BLP. Also - the Encyclopedia Britannica has multiple issues and using it to support wikipedia positions is not one of them. Basically - it was a good faith NPOV edit and you should consider allowing it a chance to be accepted without your reverts. Youreallycan (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF on this. A bit awk, but the best approach. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, Some editors at BLP disagree with me. Some don't. And BTW, I don't have a POV on what Demi's name is. I have a 'POV' about Wikipedia not implying that she is lying about it, particularly in the lede of the article. If you consider the matter so important, why didn't you take apart in the WP:BLPN discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean this sincerely when I say that I'm gratified you can acknowledge that some editors (including one here, just above) disagree with you. I was afraid I was speaking with a different sort of person, based on some of your previous comments. I still believe that Time Inc., et al., are not wholesale liars or incompetents incapable of doing one of the basic tasks of journalism, which is spelling names right. I got into this article when, as a journalist myself, I wanted to check on her name. And as someone who considers Wikipedia a good place to find footnoted references already gathered in one place that I can then check for myself, I am saying in all honesty that burying such basic information makes it harder for those of us who use Wikipedia in a practical, everyday sense.

But this partisan debate has worn me down. I leave this page with every assumption that you are editing in good faith and I sincerely applaud your passion and dedication to a project we both believe in very much. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Moronic. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with mentioning that some sources have reported her name as "Demetria". We aren't making a judgement call one way or the other, we're just saying what the sources say. Not mentioning it at all makes the article incomplete and makes us look like a lot of obtuse bureaucrats. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How incredibly sad that this article now slaps false information right in our faces (stating "she was born Demi Guynes") while throwing out 25 years of history; interviews, published materials, etc., that give her birth name as Demetria Gene Guynes - that has never been disputed or refuted at any time in any way by Ms. Moore - all based on a recent Twitter "tweet" that may or may not have actually been written by Ms. Moore. A giant blow to the reputation of accuracy of this wiki. A real shame. Sad. 68.122.9.88 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So now, if Eminem tweets he was born Mitchell Mathers not Marshall Mathers, or denies he ever used drugs, will we immediately change his article too? I mean, it's coming straight from him, right? Shouldn't we believe him? And if Jane Fonda tweets that she is actually only 49 years old - should we hurry up and change her article to reflect that? Or if she denies she was really ever married to Ted Turner... should we just go ahead and change her article, as we did with Demi's? By the way, the Wikipedia page on Nicki Minaj states she was born in 1982, per sources, (not People magazine, but TMZ and a police report), even though she personally has stated that she was born in 1984 (making her 2 years younger) -- yet we did not change her article to reflect her claim -- so when do we "believe" a celebrity and change their article based on their own word, (Demi) and when do we not (Nicki)? Is this now a new policy that any celebrity can "tweet" information about themselves and Wikipedia will immediately change their article to reflect what they say, throwing away many years of other sources? Or is this a special dispensation for Ms. Moore? Consistency, anyone? 68.122.9.88 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the strawmen and forcing you POV across - Can I make some corrections to your above claims? The earliest demetria claim I can find is 1991, that makes it 20 years of history, you have yet to show any interviews or officially published materials that support your position. The tweets do not stand alone all reliable sources from before 1991 claim Demi, Sources from after 1991 are equally split between the use of "Demi Guynes" and "Demetria Guynes""demi+Guynes"&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1991%2Ccd_max%3A"demetria+Guynes"&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1991%2Ccd_max%3A but official biographies tend to favour Demi and tabloid press/"Do you know alternate names" articles tend to use Demetria. Demi has certainly given interviews asserting that her mother did not use the full Demetria cometic name such as this interview recorded by journalists from "BANG Shobwiz" late last year and I have yet to see any of the interviews or records you claim to have access to that show her name to have been Demetira. In the Nicki Minaj bio, we have a primary source that verifies which of the conflicting secondary sources is correct, The claim of lying also received a lot of notable media coverage in itself (something Demi's name has not). In this case if you can show literally show somewhere that a primary has been posted that supports your secondary sources then it might carry some more weight but so far you have nothing to show. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

An offer of mediation has been made by User:Dweller, based on an ARB request that was turned down for lack of fuller negotiation than on this page and the BLP Noticeboard. If the other ARB parties don't want mediation, then the ARB committe recommended further steps; I believe an RfC would be the next one.

I would say 68.122.9.88 makes a very important point. No article subject, celebrity or not, should be able to make any claim they want to in a tweet and have it erase decades of reporting that says otherwise.

If I'm understanding Stuart.Jamieson correctly, and perhaps I'm not, he seems to be saying that only the tabloid press uses "Demetria." That's not really so; Time Inc. is not a "tabloid press" company. Neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Neither is All Media Guide, which The New York Times licenses for use. Also, official biographies tend to be whitewashed, so they, too, aren't end-all-and-be-all.

I know firsthand, from People magazine's sister pub, Entertainment Weekly, how stringent Time Inc. is with fact-checking and with journalists providing supporting material; I've turned in audio of interviews I've done, and I've even turned in photocopies of original contracts (with dollar amounts redacted) to show that, for example, someone was an uncredited contributor to a film or had written a contracted and unproduced movie. Editors and fact-checkers alike comb your articles. Even for something light like EW, Time Inc. takes its responsibility for accuracy very seriously. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, if your approach to mediation is to repeat the same assertions of journalistic infallibility (based on your own POV, rather than actual evidence), combined with hyping the sources that support your claims, and denigrating the ones that don't, and ignoring entirely issues of weight, relevance, and common decency to the subject of the BLP, I cannot see how Dweller's offer is going to get us far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a little research reveals that People magazine regularly makes errors - and admits to making them, if not exactly in the most obvious place. Hidden amongst their archived 'Mailbag' entries [8] are the following (For this month alone): "In our Dec. 27 issue, we misidentified Kimberly Van Der Beek's occupation. She is a business consultant. In our Dec. 20 issue, we stated that actor Scott Caan was raised by his mother. Caan's father, actor James Caan, was actually his primary caregiver for many years. PEOPLE regrets the errors.", "In our story "Misdiagnosed for Greed?" in the Dec. 6 issue, the city of Dearborn, Mich., was misspelled.", "In the Holiday Gift Guide in the Dec. 6 issue, we misstated the game system Justin Bieber plays on. The singer uses the Xbox 360 Kinect. We regret the error." and "n the Movies section of our 12/6 issue, we gave an incorrect name for King George VI's daughter Margaret Rose. PEOPLE regrets the error. Also, in our First Look at the movie Cars 2 in the 11/29 issue, we were provided the wrong image for the character Grem (voiced by Joe Mantegna). The correct image appears at right". Where were the 'fact-checkers' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Operated as they are by fallible human beings and not omniscient entities, every publication in the world makes errors despite layers of oversight. Misspelling a city's name? Misstating an occupation? Of course minor errors happen, and corrections get run. By your own pen you see the care that People puts in to acknowledge such errors. What does that say about People having never retracted its reportage of "Demetria"? The press also operates under libel laws as an additional, outside layer of oversight. This is to say nothing of good old free enterprise, in which competing publications are only too happy to point out competitors' errors.

You have admitted bias against the press — citing a British investigation that does not involve inaccuracy but rather overzealous attempts at accuracy via hacking into phone messages. Based on your statements, no journalistic source can ever be trusted except on your personal say-so. Press-bashing and claiming that Time Inc.'s People is not a reliable source and should not be used is something, I'm sure, that the vast majority of Wikipedians — and certainly the vast majority professional journalists — would find unsustainable. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So yet more of the same self-serving speculative waffle. I'm sure that the majority of professional journalists hold their profession in high regard - you certainly do. That is irrelevant. You continue to make claims about 'fact-checking' that aren't borne out by the facts. Given your clear emotional involvement with issues regarding the reliability of journalists, I have to wonder whether you should be involved in this discussion at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I have professional insight and actual eyewitness facts about how the profession works, I shouldn't be involved in this discussion? That's not a valid argument. Not "borne out by the facts"? I'm not sure how you would know the facts. Are you saying People does not have fact-checkers, editors and copy editors? Really? I've seen them at sister publication Entertainment Weekly, and my peers, as eyewitnesses say they exist, at People. You're getting your facts from where, exactly?

I don't think I've speculated or waffled. I think I've spoken forthrightly and clearly. Nor do I believe I've been emotional; I certainly haven't lost my temper and cursed at you, as you have to me. In any event, your primary argument seems to be that journalistic sources are invalid overall, except for when you approve of them. I can see why you don't want to go to mediation. I find it interesting that I'm perfectly willing to, and confident that logic and reason will prevail. Please consider User:Dweller's gracious offer. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What have I said that misrepresents your arguments? And wouldn't you welcome a mediator, if that's the case? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That you consider your representation of my arguments as accurate confirms my low opinion of some journalists. And no, 'mediation' shouldn't have to involve the mediator having to deal with such issues anyway. If Dweller wan't to discus the issues with me he can of course - but as long as you continue to resort to speculative hyperbole, I can't see it getting far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That answer was lacking in specifics. I'm also unclear about "If Dweller wan't to discus the issues with me," since in order for mediation to begin, the involved parties need to go to the proposed mediator and agree to it. I've done so. The Arb committee has encouraged us to work toward resolution. Do you agree that resolution is something to work toward? May I please, with all respect, have a clear answer? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo: "wants" was what I intended. But yes, I'm prepared to work towards a resolution. What I'm not prepared for though is endless circular arguments about 'fact-checkers', combined with a complete refusal to address issues of weight etc. This isn't a disagreement about the merits of journalism as a profession - or at least, it shouldn't be. It is about what is appropriate in a Wikipedia biography of a living person. I do not think that insinuations that Ms Moore is lying about her own name are appropriate - and that is what you seem to be defending. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a positive step, and I welcome it. The next step is up to you: Under protocol, you (and anyone else wishing to have this mediated) need(s) to actively go to User talk:Dweller and respond affirmatively. I honestly believe after all this is over we'll have reached an accurate middle ground that addresses all the various editors' legitimate concerns. And I'd bet you and I can work comfortably and collaboratively in the future afterward. This will be a good thing. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And what do I see when I go to Dweller's talk page? This: [9] If you honestly consider that a reasonable attempt at initialising the mediation process, then I have no interest in discussing the matter with you any further. I suggest that Dweller instead contacts others who have been involved in the discussions (there are a lot of us) and attempts to arrive at a consensus amongst them instead. Like I said, you seem too emotionally involved to play a useful part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I'm surprised that you refuse to try mediation. I tried. I guess we need to go to an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No you're not understanding Stuart.Jamieson correctly; I said before I mentioned tabloid sources that sources were split this is the case with usually reliable sources with some using Demi and others using Demetria. I then went on to say that tabloids tend to exclusively side with Demetria; as do lightweight articles with possibly less fact checking about "What celebrities used to be called". I did not say or imply that this usage was only by tabloid sources.

As for your other points, for over 20 years (until 1988) Encyclopedia Britannica carried an article on the "Salem Church Dam" which never actually constructed (despite Britannica's claim that it actually existed o the Rappahannock River) it also got the birth names of Billie Holiday, Audrey Hepburn, Betty Ford, Mamie Eisenhower wrong in various editions - which is another reason we don't tend to use tertiary sources. Prior to The New York Times licensing the All Media Guide for use, it used "Demi Guynes" the two articles it has run since then - a lightweight "What celebrities were named" article in 2004 and a biography article in 2011 have used the "Demetria Guynes" name. As for your last point I should just have said "biographies" though, as Demi has never authorised an "official" one and I'm not sure unofficial ones will be as whitewashed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft with formatting

For simplicity's sake, I've just used one version of the sentences that we've narrowed it down to. That sentence's phrasing is still up for tweaking, of course.

I've also noticed that a lot of this isn't cited; the Biography Channel article doesn't include such details as parents' / siblings' birth dates or the family having moved 40 times. The 1996 People article says: "By his daughter's estimate, Danny had moved the family some 30 times before Moore was a teenager."

Also, I tried, but please note that the Twitter posts don't appear to be archivable by either Archive.org or Webcitation.org.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Early life

Moore was born in Roswell, New Mexico. As a child, she had a difficult and unstable home life. Her biological father, Charles Harmon, left her mother, Virginia King (November 27, 1943 – July 2, 1998), after a two-month marriage, before Moore was born. As a result, Moore had the surname of her stepfather, Danny Guynes (March 9, 1943 – October 1980 by suicide), on her birth certificate. Danny Guynes frequently changed jobs, causing the family to move 40 times. Moore has two younger half-brothers: James Craig Harmon (paternal) and Morgan Guynes (maternal, born 1967). Her parents were alcoholics who often fought and beat each other. Moore was cross-eyed as a child and wore an eye patch in an attempt to correct the problem until it was ultimately corrected by two surgeries. She also suffered from kidney dysfunction.

Demi is not short for Demetria

I changed Demetria to Demi. Demi stated on twitter "Demetria is a beautiful name. my full name though is actually just Demi" http://twitter.com/mrskutcher/status/2243267925—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.166.159 (talk • contribs)

You are right. I have changed the couple of places that you missed. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that that's her real Twitter? Or that she doesn't mean she's legally shortened her name to "Demi"? I ask because People Magazine states that "Demi Moore got her real name, Demetria, from a beauty product her mother saw in a magazine". A writer here cited an interview in McCall's as stating the same thing. All Hallow's (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am positive. The account has been verified by the Twitter staff. All those links mentions Demetria as a "fun fact", and there's not actually a quote saying that she has said it. In that Twitter response I think she makes it quite clear that Demetria has never been her name, or she would have made a mention of it. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you read the question here, it's even more obvious that she would have worded her response differently if she was indeed born with the name. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. All Hallow's (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

However, Moore's entry on IMDB states that her real first name is Demetria, in Wikipedia's list of stage names her given name is listed as Demetria, the Wikipedia article on Redondo Beach states that she attended school there for one year under her real name, Demetria Guynes, and there are countless references online that quote Demetria as her first name. I've made changes (but do not feel qualified to make the necessary change to the pronunciation entry).

By all means revert my changes if there is good proof that her birth name is NOT Demetria (something other than a Tweet). AncientBrit (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you and IMDB is not a reliable source. Therefore, I have reverted you. Nymf _hideliho! 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But Twitter is a reliable source? Really? Besides, her name was legally changed to "Demi Guynes Kutcher". Just because Demetria isn't currently her name doesn't mean it never was. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Twitter in this instance is not the source, it is merely the vehicle. The source is Moore herself (and the Twitter account has been verified as being her personally). It is Moore herself that has said that Demetria has never been her name. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the above poster is wrong, Demi did not say that "Demetria has never been my name". Her tweet said "my full name is Demi" NOT "Demetria has never been my name". Her birth name was Demetria. If she changed her name legally to Demi, it does not mean that Demetria was never her name - it was. Just as Cher legally changed her name to "Cher" - she was born Cherilyn Sarkisian. Why state that Demi said that "Demetria has never been my name" - she did not - her Twitter tweet does not say that. Please get your facts straight. 68.124.177.160 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that things are self perpetuating on the internet. It only takes one unreferenced and unsupported entry on IMDB and the error will be copied all over the place in a very short space of time. Unless a very good reference to the contrary can be provided we must stay with the definitive comment from Moore herself and continue to remove any entries of Demetria. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice Biography.com is still calling her Demetria. I also find it strange she was listed as Demetria for her entire career until this supposed Tweet came about. Just sayin'. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The above is right. She has always been listed Demetria everywhere. That was even in the 90s when internet was not so big. I have read several magazines that put her real name as Demetria. 82.141.127.50 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so why did someone change her birth name to "Demi"? This is inaccurate, and should not have been changed in the article. 68.124.177.160 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're taking a self-published tweet over literally hundreds of magazines, news articles, etc. then Wikipedia has officially lost it... To quote a user below: "I can show where she verified that her birth name IS Demetria in 1996. I have included links to two People magazine articles below, one is from 1996 which DIRECTLY QUOTES Demi saying that her birth name is Demetria, and why her mother named her that." Mythpage88 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that People, which is certainly a reliable source, gives Demetria, but I couldn't find her being actually quoted herself giving that name. And we do have to give a certain credence to someone making a claim about her own name. It's not end-all and be-all, but we have to consider it. In any event, further down the page is further discussion on this and on the compromise version now on the page. Sometimes when reasonable disagreement cannot be bridge, compromise is the only solution. It beats edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All well and good, except that Demi Moore in her youth lived for some time in Perryopolis, Pennsylvania, where she attended Frazier High School - and is listed in the records there as Demetria Guynes. I don't know if someone else handles her twitter account and accidentally tweeted misinformation, or if Demi would rather just forget her past, but she was named "Demetria Gene Guynes". Have fun changing history here at Wikipedia, it looks like you've got a good chance of doing so... 68.122.10.149 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And we'll just take your word for that? Do you have any sort of proof? Nymf _hideliho! 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you look into it further yourself, instead of holding so stubbornly to your unproven stance...? Don't you want to know the truth? 68.122.10.149 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Nymf _hideliho! 22:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't contradict a living subject. If she came to this talk page and verified herself with OTRS, we would correct the article. Since there is reasonable doubt about all the sources, we simply don't bring it up at all. When in doubt, leave it out. Yworo (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to write press-release puff pieces. There is no doubt whatsoever that Time Inc.'s People magazine, the Encyclopedia Britannica and other high-WP:RS sources have reported her name is Demetria. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability. It is absolutely verifiable that these sources have reported this, which is exactly what the article says. We have no right to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that reliable, verifiable, credible, pertinent information doesn't exist. Stalinist-Russia erasure of history is absolutely improper. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to biographies of living people, different priorities prevail. the essence of BLP is to cause no harm. If indeed usually reliable publications got it wrong, then we are perpetuating the harm caused. We cannot pit the subject's word against multiple sources that do not base their facts directly on her words. It ads nothing to the article and only confuses. If we cannot state a person's religion without a statement of self-identification, how could we state a person's birth name which contradicts their current verified statements. It doen't matter if Demi typed the tweets herself, if she didn't they were typed by her direct agent. The writers of past articles were not her agents. Now, if she had stated herself in the past that her names was Demetria and was now stating something different, that would be both notable and interesting. Pitting the subject against possibly wrong sources is not. Yworo (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

" The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability". Wrong. The standard of Wikipedia is encyclopaedic content. As for comparisons with 'Stalinist-Russia', I suggest you get a sense of perspective. Or < redacted - ATG >. Do you really think your infantile concerns over this bit of trivia are comparable to the sufferings of millions in the Gulag? <redacted>... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy -- before you get into trouble for (perhaps, in someone's view) being less than civil, you might want to consider re-jiggering your last post above. I know you have sufficient facility with the language to get your point across without possibly subjecting yourself to official approbation. Just a suggestion. Have a grumpy holiday. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. And a merry whatever-you-chose-to-celebrate to one and all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, thank you for your civilized comment. The bullying and incivility of talk is the last resort of those who cannot make their arguments on logic, and they have no place in a Wikipedia discussion. "Fuck off" is not a rational argument.

The policy page absolutely opens up with the phrase, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability." So don't mislead or prevaricate, please.

Her tweets are self-published sources. We're supposed to give them weight, not treat them as the word of God.

"[I]nfantile concerns over this bit of trivia"? First, don't insult people. You cannot possibly make an argument to justify such behavior. No one can. Secondly, you seem to be more passionate and concerned about this than I, since you're resorting to the aforesaid verbal bullying and name-calling.

Finally, erasure of history is erasure of history. No one is speaking of Stalinist genocide, and it is disingenuous and misleading to conflate the two. We are speaking solely of pretending that facts widely reported by extremely highly reliable sources simply don't exist.

Maybe this needs to go to ARB. I'm tired to the bullying, the name-calling, the profanity and the ownership. To pretend that this controversy doesn't exist is erasing history, and it's wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (or at least, it should be) ARB doesn't deal in such matters. As for 'ownership', I think you'll find that many of the people involved in the dispute (including me for one) had no involvement in the issue prior to it being raised at WP:BLP/N. How I could possibly 'own' something I had no knowledge of is utterly beyond me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is saying, "We don't contradict a living subject" and in his edit summary referred to WP:BLP. That policy absolutely does not say that. It says self-published material, including tweets, "may be used as a source" [emphasis mine] if it meets five standards. The policy also says, "Exercise caution in using primary sources," and confirms that WP:V is the sourcing policy: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That defines this material — all of which is "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Citing WP:BLP to remove this material is simply false!--Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the essay Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, which has specific guidance about removing sourced material if any doubt is cast on it, especially by the living subject herself. See under heading "For removal of sourced content" which further specifies that "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so." There is not an unequivocal consensus to restore this material. Yworo (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's an essay, which is opinion only; it is by no means even a guideline, let along a policy. And stating the name given in major reliable sources since the 1990s is in no way whatsoever doing "harm".--Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

- I don't think there is any strong problem with the content that it needs excluding completely - lets look at de-escalating and resolving this ... a final solution is close imo, I think not in the lede is a good position to start from? and so we are left with , a note , which has some support and as we are now, in the early life section. We just need to see where consensus is at for this and move on. Youreallycan (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

911 call

911 call is a notable event for this celeb. I came here to find out what happened. Nothing listed on the front page. I had a look in the talk page and saw sixty quintillion words being shouted by old women about what her name is. Really? Really. Sigh. Page is locked so nobody but the old women can edit it I guess and actually add some useful and up to date information. Lay down your crochet needles ladies, no need to threaten each other with them. Get to editing some useful info pls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.117.48 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd question the long-term 'notability' of this event - this is an online encyclopaedia, not a downmarket tabloid. Yes, Ms Moore seems to have been taken ill, under less-than-clear circumstances, but we'll all probably have forgotten about it in a month or two. As for your comments regarding the long-running debate about Ms Moore's name, I share your opinion, if not necessarily agreeing with your characterisation: some of us are old men ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

<redacted - ATG>

HollyShaye (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This appeared to be a copy-and-paste from somewhere, rather than an edit request. Given its content, I have redacted it as a possible violation of WP:BLP. In any case, we don't base articles on 'celebrity websites', as this seemed to be sourced from. If and when reliable mainstream sources comment on the events, we may consider inclusion in the article - but see WP:NOTNEWS, we don't include every bit of trivia gossip, and titlillation. This is an encyclopaedia, not a trashy tabloid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Demi Moore's name

Comments are requested on how best to balance Demi Moore's recent Twitter statements that "Demi" is her birth name in light of two decades' reporting in WP:RS publications that her birth name is "Demetria." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is an invalid RfC, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment protocol: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue...". I suggest that it be marked as closed, and Tenebrae be asked to read policy before playing any further part in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please say what in the phrasing is not neutral. People is a reliable-source publication. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop being so pig-headed. An unqualified assertion that People is WP:RS when this is one of the matters in debate is not by any definition of the word neutral. You completely disregard objections regarding weight, and the appropriateness of implications of lying in a BLP, again making this bogus 'RFC' meaningless. Again, I ask that it be closed, as the ludicrous attempt to spin the debate it clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pig-headed." Wow. That personal attack is so uncivil. Insults and name-calling are the last refuge of one who cannot use logic to support one's point. Time Inc.'s People is a reliable-source publication. No admin would believe differently. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Another insulting attack. This is inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should both give it a rest. The more you flood this section with this irrelevant drivel, the harder it will be for other editors to read and comment.--Taylornate (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Omit Demetria - the supposedly RS articles do not state where they sourced "Demetria" from. None quote the subject. Most likely some unreliable source got it wrong and a bunch of sources that should have known better copied it. New Mexico does not release birth certificates except to family and for legal purposes. Clearly, the subject's statements on her verified Twitter account should be given great weight, regardless of whether Moore or an authorized agent made the tweets. Per Wikipedia:Do no harm and WP:BLP, we must get the article right. Contradicting the subject's own statements on the matter cannot help but come off like we believe the subject is lying, regardless of how or where presented in the article. Sources like People are not academic journals and their fact-checking is sometimes quite deficient. They are writing primarily to entertain, not inform. Yworo (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this, although I disagree with the way you are applying policy. I don't think this is a BLP/harm issue. I do think Demi's Twitter posts should be held as more reliable than the other publications we've seen. You know what your name is and I don't see why this is so contentious. The whole thing is silly.--Taylornate (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Include mention of Demetria:

1) With all respect, "Most likely some unreliable source got it wrong" is unsubstantiated speculation; Time Inc.'s People magazine is a reliable source, and no reason is given that its professional reporting, editing, copy editing and fact-checking staff is unreliable.

2) Confirmation of birth names can be given in multiple ways besides birth certificates, such as confirming with parents or other family, through passports, etc. A magazine not publishing or citing a birth certificate for every birth date or birth name it gives is not cause for summary dismissal.

3) For at least 20 years, this has been reported in such RS publications as People, The World Almanac Book of Facts 2009, Encyclopedia Britannica and All Media Guide, which The New York Times licenses for use. We cannot in good conscience pretend that widely reported, credible and pertinent information does not exist and has never existed.

4) A claim by a living subject must be given great weight, but it does not have veto power to simply erase any reported fact that the subject does not like. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So your arguments come down to "it's true because it's a reliable source", and "it's a reliable source because it's true"... And because you can imagine how the source might have have possibly got hold of the 'truth'... And because your imagination is a reliable source, because you're a journalist... And because Demi would rather lie about her name than have anyone know she is actually Demetria (or Demitria? The 'reliable' sources don't seem to agree about this...), because that would obviously do irreparable harm to her career... Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph above is one unsupported assertion and leap-of-logic claim after another. People and Encyclopedia Britannica and All Media Guide are reliable sources. Are you really willing to argue otherwise? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But not with you. You are apparently incapable of responding with anything but the same assertions of journalistic infallibility, and there is no point in arguing with irrationally-founded beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough, please, with the ad hominem attacks. If facts can't support your case, please do not resort to attacking another person's intelligence or integrity.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The facts support my case. And I'm not attacking your intelligence or your integrity - I'm attacking your stubbornness and irrationality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, is that the pot calling the kettle black. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting fact: one of the supposedly RS sources states that Demi's mother named her after a cosmetics line. In the 1960s, Revlon had a line called "Demi".[http://www.amazon.com/1967-Revlon-Demi-Makeup-2-Page-Print/dp/B002KDTR2M] I've been unable to find a 1960s cosmetics line called "Demetria". Can anyone verify that there was a line called "Demetria". If not, the source that mentions this is surely unreliable. Yworo (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Revelon used "Demi-Makeup" as a marketing term for their Moon Drops Makeup, it looks like this was released around 1967 making it unlikely to be related to her name. more likely the makeup that Demi has mentioned is a smaller brand whose advertising is probably at the bottom of a landfill somewhere. However I think the BANG showbiz interview is a reliable source that her mother named her after a makeup named Demi(something).. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And presumably it is a reliable source for ""I actually have a real passion for it that started going back to my name. My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up". Her mother named her Demi. Not Demetria. Not Demitria. Demi. And not sourced from her verified Twitter account either - case closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no "case closed" — only an admin decides that and it's improper to try and intimidate other editors by falsely pretending this RfC is over.

The comments above AndyTheGrump's are using OR analysis, which is not the basis for what we include; verifiability is, and we can verify that hosts of RS sources have noted "Detetria" over the years. I might conversely OR-analyze that "Detetria" is so specific it could not have been made up by a writer out of whole cloth, and that therefore must have come from Moore or a family member - case open, to use that phrase ironically. The larger point out, we can't use OR analysis as our basis. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think I was trying to 'intimidate' anyone by my "case closed" comment, then report me at AN/I - it is a ridiculous interpretation of my words. As for the rest, there is no WP:OR whatsoever in quoting Demi, word for word, from a reliable source. It is you that is engaging in OR - or more succinctly in this case, bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any OR in that post and I'm a bit puzzled at the idea.--Taylornate (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not AndyTheGrump's, but Stuart.Jamieson's and Yworo's: original-research analysis. We're not here to do original research into obscure, possibly regional 1960s cosmetics brands. We're here to determine what reliable sources have said, not do our own personal investigations. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Agreed.--Taylornate (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A simple question for Tenebrae: is TVNZ a reliable source? (No speculation or OR please). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We can't do original research to put in the article, but we can do due diligence in finding whether the claims in the supposedly reliable sources are verifiable as part of the process of determining if they are reliable for this particular fact. If in fact there was no such cosmetics line as Demetria, and Revlon Demi also did not exist at the time of Moore's birth, then we are dealing only with a made-up "interesting fact" which is not in any way reliable, regardless of whether the sources themselves are "usually" reliable. Such a story, made up by who-knows-whom just to grab eyeballs, can't be put up against the subject's own statements. Yworo (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding the phrase "due diligence" in anything regarding WP:VERIFY. I'm not sure where that came from, but re-reporting or re-investigating an RS publication's claim by researching whether there was a cosmetics line of that name is original research not matter what you call it. And short of launching a full-scale investigation by interviewing cosmetics historians and doing library research, there is no guarantee than an amateur investigation that any of us would do would show anything conclusive whatsoever. Just doing an Internet search is not doing any research that would qualify as due diligence. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, a Google Books search is enough. Tons of old fashion mags are now included, and it is easy to find dozens for references to Revlon Demi there. Nothing whatsover for Demetria as a cosmetics line. If it had existed, it would have been advertised in the very same magazines. It never existed. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Google Books search is enough"? Not even her 1991 Vanity Fair interview comes up there. Do we really think that any reputable college professor would accept a master's thesis or Ph.D. dissertation that only used Google Books and never did any library research? Really? That's very surprising to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a product that was presumably massively advertised as is typical in the fashion industry. If it existed, it would be as easily found in the many fashion mags already in Google Books as it is to find Revlon Demi. We're not talking about finding an article, we talking about why there isn't a single advertisement for a claimed cosmetic line. Way different. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, no reputable college would accept a thesis or dissertation that relied solely on Google Books. Google Books is hardy comprehensive — Vanity Fair, for one, doesn't seem to be there. The argument "If it exists, it absolutely will be in Google Books" really isn't valid since much, much more exists outside of Google Books than in it. Can we at least agree that Google Books is not a complete, comprehensive resource of all the world's fashion magazines? And this is a side issue, at any rate: We have the original reporting of RS publication as verification. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your vigorous defense of the quality of journalism, this particular story has no more reliability than something reported in a Hollywood gossip column. Yworo (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Omit Demetria - from the lede as it currently is. I support either a note as has been suggested or leaving as it with the disputed first names not in the lede (as they are cite-ably disputed and rejected by the living subject) but in the early life section where they receive less weight. This is a compromise position as there is a desire to add the reported various first names even though the subject denies them. Youreallycan (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Youreallycan: Omit from lead, include in early life. A reasonable compromise that addresses various editors' concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Include what though? If we are to arrive at a solution, we need to agree wording - not just some vague principle. Personally, as I've already stated several times, I see no need for anything more than a brief footnote - there is no reason why it needs to be in the body of the text at all, given that we have unquestionable WP:RS now regarding the matter. I suggest the footnote should read "Note: some sources have claimed that Moore's first name is 'Demetria' or 'Demitria' [a][b]. She herself has stated that it is in fact simply 'Demi'. [c][d] As for sources, one each for 'Demetria' and 'Demitria' should be sufficient, and we can cite Moores Twitter post, and the TVNZ piece for 'Demi'. This is all that will be required - we don't need to include speculation about cosmetics, or anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop. We do not have "unquestionable WP:RS now regarding the matter." Ms. Moore's tweet does not hold veto power over decades of journalistic and reference-work reporting. That is simply false. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask you again: Is TVNZ a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I disagree. I think your language decades of journalistic and reference-work reporting probably vastly overstates the journalistic effort on the fact-checking on this particular point. If we find an official document or some publication that acknowledges Moore's assertion and then goes on to challenge it then we will have something to talk about. Until then, my opinion is the other refs should hold no weight against the Twitter posts. She knows what her name is and this discussion is silly.--Taylornate (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, and I understand how, unless one has experienced it oneself, one could make an assumption about "the journalistic effort on the fact-checking on this particular point." It's an assumption to say that Time Inc.'s fact-checking on this was any less stringent than any other. Getting names correct is such a basic tenet of journalism, and the sheer improbability of a reporter simply making up such an exotic name doesn't really stand. Neither does the idea that — leaving fact-checkers and copy editors aside — not one of the layer of editors above the reporter/writer would look at that unusual name and not for a moment question it. Average publications wouldn't do that. To assume a Time Inc. publication would do that is not realistic. Honestly: Does anyone really think there are no editors, and no oversight, and a writer can just make a name up out of the air? That seems to be the argument I'm hearing.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, for the third time of asking: is TVNZ a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just an assumption. It is evidenced by the fact that Moore herself has said they are wrong. She would know.--Taylornate (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• That last suggestion by Andy sounds close to a reasonable compromise. I do believe we should mention Demetria somewhere, given the weight of the sources, but in a footnote is not that much worse than in the body. I don't think there's any reason to limit the number of references for it arbitrarily, especially since the weight of references is the reason we're including it at all, otherwise I can foresee a request for it to be removed altogether "since there's only one reference". --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• The two highest quality reliable sources would be plenty and I also support Andy's minimal suggestion. I am only compromising here, my position would basically be that we have a reliable self published source from the subject that her birth name is Demi - Demi Moore said her birth name was Demi. Thats fine by me. However, there is a vocal position that we should mention what the press has historically mirrored around. Youreallycan (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Historically mirrored around" is a loaded phrase that discounts the original reporting done at the start of her career by Time Inc. and other RS publishers. And such latter-day publications as World Almanac and Encyclopedia Britannica aren't simply monkey-see-monkey-copy, and suggesting so is both disrespectful to those organizations in particular, and inaccurate.

The way the article is currently written seems a balanced compromise. I would remove the apparent typo reference of the Daily Mail and substitute the World Almanac and-or Encyclopedia Britannica reference.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tertiary Sources - "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Not to mention the fact that as I said above Brittanica has got plenty of Birth Names verifiably wrong in the past That said there is an interesting secondary source in the Omaha World Herald here discussing Demi's tweets against the sources that have used "Demetria" in the past. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are obliged to compromise to a single vocal user. I think we should focus on making the edits that are best, and if there are significant numbers on both sides then we should talk about compromise.--Taylornate (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait for more response to the RfC. And the extreme vocalism of one user is interfering with the process. Isn't the initiator of an RfC expected to fully explain his position at the beginning and refrain from constant argument and defense of that position to allow other editors to express theirs? Yworo (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has been up for a day in the break between Christmas and New Year's. As evidenced from previous posts on this page, a number of other editors feel as I do; let's give editors more than a day or two to get here, shall we?

Calling a Time Inc. publication no better than "a Hollywood gossip column" is beyond the pale. There is no possible realistic way to disregard the dozens of reporters, writers, editors and fact-checkers that I and anyone else who can make an appointment can see with their own eyes . Having your opinion is fine, but equating an old, venerable, established news organization with internationally recognized standards with a gossip site like Just Jared is remarkably invalid. No reasonable observer could possibly believe that Time Inc. and Just Jared are the same. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For the fourth time of asking: is TVNZ a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue as to whether this or any source is reliable for this particular fact should be taken to WP:RSN? Yworo (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a direct answer from Tenebrae on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So would I, but I'm not holding my breath... Yworo (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You want to know my personal thoughts on New Zealand's government-run state news agency? Without taking the time to research it, I, as someone half a world away in the United States, do not have an opinion on New Zealand's government-run state news agency. If there's a groundswell of editors clamoring for my own, personal take on this, I suppose I could research the issue, but it seems an odd and irrelevant request. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Given your willingness to provide us with your 'personal thoughts' on the reliability of other sources that have entered this discussion, I can see no particular reason why you should omit this one. So is it WP:RS for reporting that Ms Moore said "My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up" [10]? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you insist: A cursory glance at the linked page tells me that the source is in fact not the staff of the New Zealand state news agency, but something called "BANG Showbiz," which the agency has apparently licensed or syndicated.

BANG Showbiz, whatever it is, doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page — I could research it further, if you insist — and if you read the item with a professional eye you'll see that nowhere does this anonymously written article say that someone from BANG Showbiz actually sat down and talked with Moore. Therefore, there is a reasonable possibility this is simply copy-paste from existing sources. Another possibility is that it's part of a transcription from a press conference, but it would be highly unusual to do that without giving the source, e.g., "speaking to the media at a launch of her fragrance" or "...at the premiere of her new film."

These are the kinds of important details that a professional journalist notices when evaluating sources. It's no big deal, but it is a job skill. I wouldn't dream of telling a welder or a surgeon that I can do his job better than he. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And I think what we can reasonably assume from that response that you are assessing sources solely on the basis of whether they support your position. Given this, there is no reason whatsoever to consider your comments in this RfC as of any validity as far as Wikipedia process is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No offence intended, Andy, but that does sound like commenting on the contributor. FWIW, I agree that TVNZ is a reliable source, but it doesn't look like they're vouching for the accuracy of Ms. Moore's statement, merely quoting her. --GRuban (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's clear that it is merely a quote - from Ms Moore herself, unambiguously stating her name. Given the earlier claims that the statement on her verified Twitter account might have been posted by someone else, it seems pertinent. I'm not proposing that it be cited as a matter of fact - that isn't Wikipedia's job. We will instead be citing it as exactly what it is: a statement from Ms Moore regarding her name. Likewise, since it seems that some normally-reputable sources have suggested otherwise, we can also cite them - as making these suggestions. This is what my proposed footnote does - it makes no claims at all as to which sources are correct, and nor does it need to. This isn't a court of law. We aren't here to determine 'facts', or arrive at a 'verdict'. We are here to write an encyclopaedia - and if sources on an issue differ we can present both cases, and let the readers decide for themselves. Assuming of course that the readers really care... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks for the clarification. Yes, I do like the "present both cases" idea. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Awfully funny that some sources claim "Demetria" was a makeup, others claim it was a shampoo. Where is this evidence of fact-checking you were mentioning? Yworo (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

TVNZ did not write that item. It syndicated or licensed it from something called BANG Showbiz. The fact that it's anonymous should raise a red flag. The fact it doesn't say where or when the interview took place should raise a red flag. That's not a matter of me agreeing with it or not; those are simply neutral facts: It's not TVNZ staff, it's anonymous, it doesn't say where or when the quotes originated. Those are three objective, neutral facts.

The quote also provides no new information in addition to her tweets. No one is disputing she has said this. But no responsible journalist or academic would take a single source's word as gospel; that's why we seek secondary confirmation. To suggest that Wikipedia have a less stringent standard, a lower bar, than your average journalist doesn't seem like something we should encourage.

I can't speak to the cosmetics/shampoo issue; I would go with whatever the original source said, if it were pertinent. But the compromise version currently in the article doesn't get into that tangential issue; it simply says many sources have given her birth names as Demetria. That reportage is an irrefutable fact; whether you personally believe it or not, it's been verifiably reported by WP:RS publications for at least 20 years. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That begs the question, have you identified the original source? Which source is it? Was it a reliable one? If a normally reliable source repeats a "fact" originally reported in an unreliable source, then other reliable sources repeat it based on that mistake, does that somehow make the fact reliable? Yworo (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm at work right now and afternoon deadlines are hitting, though I've been trying to respond to people directing questions at me personally; I can't always get to things right away. Time Inc.'s People magazine gives Demetria in a roundup bio here. It may be tomorrow before I can do more research. In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to hear from other voices aside from the three or four us most active here. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The roundup you cite gives Demetria as part of a "Five fun facts" section on their website which may or may not subject to the same, some of, or none of the same stringent fact checking that you claim occur at entertainment weekly, even if the print copy of People is. I would certainly ask the question on WP:RSN if you intended to use it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the original BANG SHOWBIZ interview is at [11] unlike some of their interviews it's not a sit down interview but they state their journalists also interview people at events and product launches which is what this looks like - Other sources such as Us magazine interviewed her at a Helena Rubinstein launch a year earlier and then went on to make the Demetria claim in their reporting of the interview despite demi not making that claim personally (her quote reads "I had a very young mother and she was a little wacky. My name came from a make-up brand, that's where she saw it. She was always a little wild, but she never went a day without washing her face and using a little moisturizer,") Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Stuart. I appreciate your calmness and the background you give here. You'd mentioned we don't generally use tertiary sources such as World Almanac or Encyclopedia Britannica, so I'll forgo those.

Without going to the physical library and looking for bound volumes of magazines not on the Web, I've found references in what I believe we can all agree are reliable sources: The New York Times (the actual staff of, not the licensed All Media Guide material) and the Chicago Tribune, in addition to the previously noted People.

• New York Times staffer Virginia Heffernan, who holds a Harvard University Ph.D. and began her career as a fact-checker, gives "Demetria Guynes" in the February 27, 2004, article "Critic's Notebook; Unabashed Stars Break the Shackles Of the Name Game".

• Anne Taubeneck in the Chicago Tribune also gives "Demetria Guynes" in the April 11, 1999, article "Would A Star By Any Other Name Shine As Bright?".

• As well, in a June 24, 1996, article, "Eye of the Tiger", by Gregory Cerio, Time Inc.'s People magazine writes, "Her mother, Moore has said, got the name Demetria from a beauty product she saw in a magazine."

The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and People are credible, reputable journalistic sources. Heffernan is a major figure in entertainment and pop cultural journalism. Additionally, Stacy Jenel Smith, with the equally reputable Tribune News Services — the syndication arm of the Chicago Tribune — uses "Demetria Guynes" in the January 1, 1997, article "Actress Uses Her Own Name". (The headline is a reference to her keeping her married name, "Moore".)

I don't believe we can reasonably ignore "Demetra Guynes" references in such major news outlets as The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune. etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that at this point anyone is suggesting that we 'ignore' them. Do you have any comments on my proposed footnote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Youreallycan's proposal that in be in the body. No one is advocating for the lead by any means, but the "Early life" section seems like a logical place given that it involves her early life and that these these are highly credible and responsible sources and not throwaway references.

Just nosing around, I've also found the New York Daily News article "Emmanuelle Chriqui is up for Adam Sandler's ribbing" by staff writer Mark Elwood, June 15, 2008; and the Entertainment Weekly cover story "Ripley--Believe It or Not"] (about the movie The Talented Mr.Ripley) by Chris Nashawaty, Dec. 17, 1999. (This is irrelevant in a Wikipedia sense, but I'd like to mention that I know Chris, and he's one of the most careful and meticulous journalists you'd ever want to meet. At that level of the game, these people are like Major League Baseball players.) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you won't agree to my proposal, can you offer a concrete one of your own? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I did suggest Youreallycan's proposal: "leaving as it with the disputed first names not in the lede ... but in the early life section where they receive less weight. This is a compromise position...." I would remove "Demitria" since our research together shows that was a typographical error, and use the cites from People 1996, Chicago Tribune 1999 and The New York Times 2004. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then propose some actual text. As for omitting 'Demitria' because "our research together shows that was a typographical error", this is precisely what we shouldn't be doing - it is obvious WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As Youreallycan suggested, I would essentially keep the phrasing as now, with the typo caveat I've noted, and the three cites. Four, if people also want Entertainment Weekly or the New York Daily News, say: "Although disputed by Moore,[2] many sources give her birth name as Demetria."[3][4][5][6] --Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, If we agree that The New York Times, and Chicago Tribune are credible, reputable journalistic sources. The surely we can't ignore the fact that they have equally given her Birth name as Demi NYT, CT - Surely they can't be reliable both for citing a fact to be true and it's opposite to be equally true? We also have the Boston Globe article written by Jay Carr who is also a major figure in entertainment and pop cultural journalism. BG citing "Demi Guynes". At some point these newspapers are acting like a tertiary source and simply copying errant information, whether from a errant reference work, or from another errant secondary source - the fact that this error exists doesn't make the error notable enough to include in her biography - in fact I only see one source the Omaha World Herald OWH discussing the fact that this error exists at all. Unless you know what source Chris Nashawaty used, then we cant assume it to be more accurate than a direct interview in which Demi states her name.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm reading is text that says "John Kerry was born in..." rather than "Jonathan Kerry was born in...." Casual references are very different from New York Times and Chicago Tribune articles that explicitly state "Demetria Guynes is our Demi Moore" (Times 2004). Unless we're going to blithely ignore decades of reputable, journalistic sources, it's accurate to say, "Although disputed by Moore, many sources give her birth name as Demetria." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Although disputed by Moore, many sources give her birth name as Demetria. is synthesis. There is no reliable source which supports this statement in its totality. Aggregating two separate facts and adding them together to advance a new position is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Tell-tale signs of a synthetic sentence include the presence of the conjunction "Although", expressing a synthetic contradiction not found in reliable sources, and weasel words like "many". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then how about, "Many sources give her birth name as Demetria." We already cite her own tweet in the lead.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this leaves us with the weasel-word "many" which is a sure indicator of original research, in the sense that we do a literature overview, count the sources and call them "many". Counting sources and reporting on them is original research not supported by independent reliable investigations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'd bet a pound to a penny that such 'research' would return more 'Demi's than 'Demetria's. A pointless exercise either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Independent reliable investigations" on our part? That sounds like OR. If you're suggesting The New York Times doesn't do its own reliable investigations, I would beg to differ. The most accurate thing I believe would be to have "Demetria" in the lead, sine extremely WP:RS publications including The New York Times give that. Unless we're willing to say that The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune and Time Inc.'s People and '"Entertainment Weekly' are not reliable sources — which would impact on Wikipedia far beyond here — then we either need to put it in the lead as per WP:VERIFY or try to find a compromise version that addresses different editors' concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. By "Independent reliable investigations" I meant that noone has come up with reporting the name discrepancy but us here in Wikipedia. Unless the NYT or someone else comes up and reports on the name controversy that: many sources give her birth name as Demetria., there is no independent coverage of the name controversy itself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not advocating one way or the other, but giving an example of how one other article addresses the issue: Georges Cuvier.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A ridiculous comparison - WP:BLP doesn't apply to Cuvier, and the doubts about his name are quite possibly due to a lack of adequate historical records (assuming that he ever had an 'official' name - I've no idea what then French law was on the matter). You now seem to be advocating putting this into the lede again, for which I've seen no support at all for here. On that basis, I see little point in discussing this further, and will put a concrete proposal for direct comment - if yours are the only objections, I can see little point in continuing further with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I disagree. As it happens, I have long believed a compromise is in the best interest of the article, but you seem to be agreeing with an editor who does not.

Not sure what you mean by "concrete proposal for direct comment": What else is an RfC but that? And the default length of RfC is 30 days. We've only had a handful of editors here, so this has a long way to go, especially if it's going to involve whether The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and Time Inc. are reliable sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If by I have long believed a compromise is in the best interest of the article, but you seem to be agreeing with an editor who does not you refer to me, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not voice any opinion regarding the "compromise". But if you have to support the compromise by engaging in synthesis and original research I have to point this out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If I misinterpreted you as objecting to compromise wording, I do apologize, and I'm sincere in that. What wording would you suggest?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. As far as the wording, frankly I think that there is no way to report on a controversy which is not covered by independent RS without engaging in some type of OR. So as a compromise I would support Andy's proposal below, which although still OR, at least it is deprecated to the form of a note rather than exist in the main text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it can be seen as OR. Still, whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You covered it by referring to WP:EXPLNOTE, so it is not that bad. But IMO since this explanation addresses a made-in-Wikipedia name controversy, it is still a little on the OR side, but not by much. However I am happy with your suggestion, in the interests of compromise. Your use of WP:EXPLNOTE was the reason I agreed with including it. Kudos for that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A specific proposal

I proposes that we add an explanatory footnote (per WP:EXPLNOTE) next to the NYT link (for 'Demi Gene Gynes') in the first sentence of the lede, which reads as follows:

"Some sources have claimed that Moore's first name is 'Demetria' or 'Demitria'. [a][b][c][d] She herself has stated that it is in fact simply 'Demi'. [c][d]"

Sources a,b, and c can be the ones proposed by Tenebrae above, plus one for 'Demitria'. For c and d, we have the TVNZ source, and Moore's verified Twitter posting. I think we have debated this quite long enough, and the footnote quite adequately covers the practical concerns. Endless arguments over the 'reliability' of sources are beside the point - all we are doing is drawing readers attention to the fact that there are differing sources, which is all that is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to progress with AndyTheGrump's good-faith, constructive bridging of the gap.

May we get other editors' opinions on excluding or including "Demitria" with an "i", which appears to me to be a non-notable typographical error, like the "Bruce Springstein" example given in an above post, which I would not advocate adding to Bruce Springsteen.

I would suggest the more neutral word "give" rather than the less neutral "have claimed." I would more neutrally give the second sentence as "Moore has stated her birth name is simply 'Demi'."[her two tweets]

The TVNZ is not really TVNZ, as Stuart.Jamieson has pointed out, but is the anonymous item at "Demi Moore 'Obsesses' over Appearance", BangShowbiz.com, December 31, 2010. I'm not comfortable with anonymous items, but BangShowbiz appears to be run by a professional journalist (albeit Fleet Street), so I do not object to using it at Andy's suggestion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. We are in agreement. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it. One slight nit: how about "was" rather than the first "is"? I'll take it either way. --GRuban (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 'give' is better than 'have claimed' - good point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And I would guess that the declarative "Moore states" rather than the past participle "Moore has stated" makes Moore's statement more definitive. While awaiting other editors' comments on "Demitria" with an "i", how about, "Some sources give Moore's birth name as 'Demetria'.[a][b][c][d] Moore states it is simply 'Demi'.[e][f][g]".--Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Better. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How many different sources do we have for 'Dimitria'? If there is only one, we can probably justify disregarding it IMO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Dimitria" is non-standard spelling and since it is covered by only one source can be omitted per WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have something, then? "Some sources give Moore's birth name as 'Demetria'.[a-Times][b-ChiTrib][c-People][d-EW] Moore states it is simply 'Demi'.[e- Tweet 1][f-Tweet 2][g-BANG]", or something further tweaked?--Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Good work, folks. Yworo (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And if I could just say, emotions and disagreements on this particular article aside, that Wikipedia benefits enormously from dedicated and passionate editors like AndyTheGrump and Yworo, among others, who care deeply about this project. Temporal issues aside and looking at the long term, I'm happy to have met them and worked with them. However they may feel about me, I mean this in absolute sincerity. Time and effort and hard work — those things will keep Wikipedia from becoming MySpace or Friendster. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that "some" is a weasel word I would rephrase to: "Moore states her birth name as simply 'Demi'.[e- Tweet 1][f-Tweet 2][g-BANG], while it is reported as 'Demetria' by [sources such as] [a-Times][b-ChiTrib][c-People][d-EW]". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with "sources such as" and the transposed clauses as written above.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tenebrae. It was nice meeting you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And you. I certainly didn't mean to leave you out of my note above; you were among the "among others"! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice reply, but don't worry. :) I understood the context of your comment above. Besides I'm just the new guy here. You and all the others have done immense work for a long time. You, Andy, Yworo, Rob and the other regulars of this debate deserve all the credit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So do we spell out "The New York Times,[footnote] the Chicago Tribune,[footnote], People,[footnote] and Entertainment Weekly.[footnote}"? Seems a bit unwieldy, but I'll go along if everyone else wants to.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. The technical details should not be difficult to iron out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting there, though I feel for stylistic and logical reasons, the footnote should mention the 'other sources' first, and Moore last - otherwise the reader will be halfway through reading the note (linked from Moore's name) before seeing why a note is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

- I have been keeping an eye on this. I would like to see this "note" presented on the talkpage so that users can tweak it and comment about it. Youreallycan (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears, I believe, that we've narrowed it down to either:

1) Moore says her birth name is "Demi".[1][2][3] Sources have also reported it as "Demetria".[4][5][6]

2) Moore's birth name is reported as "Demetria" by [sources such as] / [such sources as] The New York Times,[a-Times] the Chicago Tribune,[b-ChiTrib] People,[c-People] and Entertainment Weekly;[d-EW]" Moore states her birth name is simply "Demi".[e- Tweet 1][f-Tweet 2][g-BANGShowbiz]

--Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks can someone please format it as it will be added ij the article, with the referenced formatted as well. Youreallycan (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Gimme a mo'. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Still working on it; references from earlier in the pare are superseding those of the new draft.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Draft complete for comments. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think (1) is better - we need not name the sources, given that they are a sample - and can be found via the link anyway. It should read 'Some sources...' though, I'd think, given that others have stated 'Demi'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the current version since it gives a specific example of easily traceable sources rather than using the adjective "some" which is a weasel-word and not very specific. But if we lose the w-word I would be fine with the less detailed version. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'some' is non-specific - but I think it might be misleading to imply that there weren't sources for 'Demi' other than herself. Actually, there might even be a case for citing a non-Moore-sourced 'Demi', just to illustrate this - though this is perhaps overdoing things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Demi" is also supported by citation [7] (BangShowbiz.com) which is external to Moore. But it would be a good idea to add a few more for balance. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we're saying "Moore states...", then a citation not from Moore wouldn't be Moore stating it, and wouldn't go with the phrase. Also, outside of the previously cited The New York Times Biographical Service vol. 22, I'm finding not a lot of Google hits for "Demi Guynes" that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. In fact, the Biography Channel bio we cite says "Demetria Guynes." Be that as it may, I'm with Δρ.Κ. on naming specific sources, both to avoid the vague "some" and to be upfront that we're talking about credible journalistic sources and not tabloids. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we please not go down the road of arguing about the relative reliability of sources yet again. The fact is that Moore herself isn't the only source for 'Demi' - and that at least one 'Demetria' source has also stated 'Demi' as her name. All we need to do here is establish that both have been given, and not just by Moore herself. We aren't trying to achieve anything other than indicate that the issue isn't clear-cut, and we aren't supposed to be implying one or the other is 'better'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure we can rephrase "Moore states..." to something else to include additional sources for "Demi", not only her personal tweets. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Coming back late to this, I mentioned it above but instead of citing two tweets we can use the reliable secondary Omaha World-Herald article from 2009 which discusses the tweets (and the fact that most other sources say Demetria) - If you're looking for another Demi Source I would go for something like "and this is supported by sources such as The Boston Globe [12] Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And I've realized belatedly that we can't use the NYT Biographical Service book for the same tertiary-source reason Stuart gave that we can't use the World Almanac or Encyclopedia Britannica. The Boston Globe is virtually the only non-Demi journalistic source that gives Demi Guynes, so like the one or two papers that give "Demitria," with an "i", I'm not sure including it doesn't fall under the same WP:UNDUE. We've even just found that the Biography Channel bio that's being cited as an RS in the article also is among the many journalistic sites giving Demetria.

But I agree with Andy: As clear as it seems to me that Demetria is her birth name (she left out her first three movies from her bio in the press kit for A Few Good Men, which I'm sure is available at movie-memorabilia shops, and claimed her first film was Blame It on Rio), it seems counterproductive to reargue the point now that we've found compromise wording that addresses everyone's concerns.

I do think Stuart did find a good sum-up quote in The Omaha World-Herald article ("Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes. ... [In 2009] Moore told her fans through Twitter that Demi, not Demetria, is her full name. It’s not clear whether she's claiming she was born as Demi or has now legally changed her name.") that perhaps can be added to the end of the note to help put everything into context. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That last part is not needed, as she, more than once, has clarified it since then, essentially making the argument in that article moot. Nymf _hideliho! 15:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

- I support version one - 1 - keep it simple. Six citations is a bit excessive to support such a simple factoid. I think four externals is plenty, and suggest choosing the strongest four. - Moore says her birth name is "Demi".[1][2][3] Sources have also reported it as "Demetria".[4][5][6] - I also support the note being confined to the bottom of the article, close to or integrated in the the reference section.Youreallycan (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I support Nymf and Youreallycan on using AndyTheGrump's proposal and, as Youreallycan says, "keep[ing] it simple." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

firstly; The NYT Biographical Service book is not a tertiary source - it is a collection of secondary sources published by the NYT. A tertiary source would have been rewritten based on mulitple secondary sources not just reprinted them verbatim.

Secondly; we have plenty of journalistic sources using "Demi Guynes": Philadelphia Inquirer, toronto Star, boston Herald(There is another Globe article on this story by Jay Carr that gives her birthname as Demi as well), Virginian Pilot, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ,Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Akron Beacon Journal, Chicago tribune, and others - and those are just the ones that have been indexed by Google - further back in the the BLPN discussion I did a specialist paper search and it through up dozens of other journalistic sources including interviews with family and friends identifying her birth name as Demi but I'll have to dig those results out. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources is a full article, so we can't see the context of how it's used. As I've said, most casual references to someone's birth say, for example, "John Kerry was born in," not "Jonathan Kerry was born in."

A link that I've seen somewhere in this page to NYT Biographical Service is a page of listings no different from those of Teh World Almanac. The mention on the page given, 476, does not even say "Demi Guynes," but just "Demi" on a movie set.

So if Andy's proposal, which seemed to me as balanced as this can get, is no longer accepted, an RfC's default length is 30 days. Hopefully we'll get more than just this small group of us weighing in. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Above Andy says, "I think (1) is better - we need not name the sources" - Youreallycan (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And Δρ.Κ. prefers the version without "some," which was Andy's original compromise proposal. If Andy's backing away from that, then we don't have a compromise version after all and need to hear from many more editors than just this handful. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of those sources use formal address Philadelphia Inquirer-uses " Demi Guynes, born to teenage parents in Roswell, NM," Toronto Star-"She was born Demi Guynes in Roswell, NM, to teenage parents", Boston Herald-"the former Demi Guynes ", Virginian Pilot-"Born Demi Guynes", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette-"Demi Guynes' life included family problems". There is a big difference between use of a commonname such as "John Kerry" over "Jonathan Kerry" compared to two uncommon names "Demi Guynes" over "Demetria Guynes" in these cases the journlaist is already differentiating between her commonname and her childhood name so they would not be expected to mix her common and actual name as you are implying.

Page 476 of the NYT Biographical Service says "Demi Guynes was born in Roswell, NM, to teenage parents" please stop rejecting sources on the basis that you personally cannot see them and take into consideration WP:PAYWALL. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided a link to page 476, and that's not what I see. Maybe you're thinking of a different page. What I see is a text excerpt with the only mention of Moore coming in a passage that says, "Explains Mr. Hackford: 'Kerven was a first-time director, he had creative differences with Demi,...'"

I'm familiar with WP:PAYWALL. Given what an extremely lengthy and contentious issue this has been, both before and during the RfC, I should think we'd all want to see every source as completely as possible. I do have to admire your dedication, quite seriously, for going to the expense of paying for these articles; I don't imagine it'd be a copyvio to copy-paste the pertinent passages here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

- I don't think it would be a copyright issue. As I understand as long as you only post minor portions of text for discussion purposes and not for republication its generally ok . It might be a paywall issue - as that content is "for sale" only. Personally I accept Stuart's claims completely, he might email the specific details if someone wanted to see them? Youreallycan (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Minor portions of text are covered under fair use. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please let's not lose sight of the compromise version which we had obtained after such detailed deliberations. At this stage I would support any footnote even if it included the weasel term "some" as long as we add it to the article. It would be an utter waste of time and effort, not to mention discouraging, to abandon all this progress and reset the clock. And if need be let's AGF the PAYWALL sources. BTW thanks go to Tenebrae for their gracious invitation alerting me to this problem. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, lets get this finalized... Dr K, you do realize? we currently already have this content in the article in the early life section, Although disputed by Moore,[2] many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria. - so the reader isn't missing out. Youreallycan (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone else is assuming that we going to remove that - we don't need to state it twice, and the whole point about the footnote was to clarify the situation, without giving it undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I had in mind. I agree with Andy's clarification. Best regards Rob. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about this, strip it down, even simpler: "Sources are divided as to whether her birth name is Demetria[4 representative footnotes] or Demi[Stuart's 4 representative footnotes]. Moore says the latter.[2 tweets plus Bang Showbiz]."

The groupnote-footnote should go in the lead, however, next to first mention of her name. That's the logical place for any birth-name-related footnote. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That suggestion works well. I'd have no objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object to Stuart picking four "Demi" citations? Stuart, are you OK with that? Maybe the Pittsburgh paper would be good to include since she lived in that area?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Try this link to the NYT BS pg 476 - Google Books return different excerpts depending on your search terms. The one you keep citing is just returning the first instance of "Demi" and acknowledging that there is a "guynes somewhere further down the page. Even without paying for those other articles google returns excerpts with enough information to identify that they all refer to her childhood and/or birthname as Demi. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we all are working hard and diligently on this, that's for sure. No one's going to come along later and say we didn't do our homework thoroughly. I think we ought to take a second and give ourselves a hand — this thoroughness represents what's best about Wikipedia collaboration. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

- See, there are so many differing opinions - I see this massive type of trivia discussion and waste of editors time with zero educational value to be the type of thing that drives away contributors - that the subjects of our articles find demeaning and that such as this anal introspective chat will be more likely to destroy the project than develop it. Youreallycan (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's true that highly involved discussions can intimidate new users; no question. I'm not sure I'd say that "anal introspection" is a bad thing: Scientists and law professors and Talmudic scholars debate equally fine points with this sort of depth and back-and-forth. And, yes, it can be frustrating and even heated at times, but zero educational value? Biography is a valid topic, and basic facts are the bedrock of biography. Indeed, the first thing they teach you in journalism is the 5Ws: Who, What, When, Where and Why. And the first thing they teach you with Who is to spell the name right. I think the care that you and all of us have shown in trying to get the facts as exact is possible is important; I really do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Scientists and law professors and Talmudic scholars " - we are just simple wikipedia volunteers discussing a disputed birth name of a movie star celebrity - it's not rocket science. Her legal name when she got married was Demi. We know that and we know she says it was her birth name. This could have been resolved by a single chat over a cup of tea. Sadly there is a win lose battlefield mentality that pervades this project so we have all had to suffer all this crap - I have been personally attacked more than once in this worthless bloated discussion. Once by you Tenebrae which you steadfastly refused to retract. Tch.. beam me up Scotty. Youreallycan (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; whether it's a movie star's name or that of a Czech dissident, it's equally important for posterity to get the name right. One movie star became president of the United States, after all. I would also respectfully suggest that a Harvard Ph.D. writing for The New York Times would have the skills and the resources to use a correct birth name, and that was Demetria, so clearly there is reasonable disagreement among highly reliable, credible, professional sources, and the issue is certainly not as definitive as anyone might suggest.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

{od}I've been asked to comment on the proposal given by Tenebrae above, "Sources are divided as to whether her birth name is Demetria[4 representative footnotes] or Demi[Stuart's 4 representative footnotes]. Moore says the latter.[2 tweets plus Bang Showbiz]." In short I think this reads a little synthesised particularly since we're using so many references for each point. Given that within individual sources (both the NYT and Chicago Tribune) the split has been prominent depending on the individual article - then I feel we could narrow the 4 of each down to 1 each from the same source. For Moore's self identification we only need the Bang Showbiz not the tweets. and citing the Omaha world herald who makes this observation prevents the whole footnote being synthesis. If we choose NYT to be the the two cites (perhaps even if we don't) then consider changing the cite for the name in the lead to the Boston Herald one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am well within my agreement comfort zone with your proposal. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Except for one thing: We mention "within individual sources (both the NYT and Chicago Tribune) the split has been prominent." I'm not aware of a Chicago Tribune split, and you had mentioned, "The NYT Biographical Service book is not a tertiary source - it is a collection of secondary sources published by the NYT." By that, do we mean the book reprints articles published by the Times and-or its subsidiaries, such as its syndication service? Or is it reprinting articles that it licenses from a variety of sources? In either event, we need to cite the original publication, not the reprint, for a variety of reasons I could get into if you'd like, but let's AGF.

I disagree that it's "a little synthesised" — it either is or it isn't, and by saying "sources [plural] are divided," we need to give more than one source. Two would be a couple, but three is generally thought of us the first multiple when a plural is used.

I think we're heading in the right direction, though. I like Boston Globe and NY Times as solid RSs. Given some of these considerations, what wording would you use?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tribune 1993 uses Demi Guynes as Birth name, 1999 uses Demetria Guynes as birth name. Yes the NYT Biographical Service published (publishes?) articles published by the Times and-or its subsidiaries and for wikipedia purposes we do not need to cite the original publication even if you might have to do so in your professional role. We simply need to show that the cited source verifies the fact it is being used to reference.

It is synthesised, the question is how far does it stray into being original research on the part of the encyclopaedia? In this case it does slightly and doesn't have to when we have a source that has carried out the research and can be cited to support the claim being made. No, we don't have to give more than one source - we are simply showing that differing versions exist we are not making a claim stating how many different sources use each version - nor should we as that is irrelevant. Again I feel this is something that may apply differently to your professional role but is in danger of unbalancing this article by putting an unnecessary and undue level of sourcing onto this issue compared to the sourcing on the rest of her life.

I don't have a problem with the wording, I'm simply addressing the sourcing for the wording suggested. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You bring up issues that need to be discussed. First, please know how much I respect your views and the online research you've done; I made a point to go your talk page when we hadn't heard from you on an issue you'd discussed, so I hope you'll accept my respect as sincere.

Synthesis, by definition, is taking different elements from different sources and combining them — synthesizing them — to make a new point none of those sources individually made. Citing multiple sources all saying the same thing is not synthesis.

• For example, "John Doe died on March 25, 2012," followed by three obituary citations all stating the same date, is not synthesis.

We're saying, absolutely factually, "Sources are divided between A [more than one source footnoted since "sources" is plural] and B [ditto]." Multiple footnotes each saying the same thing are no more synthesis than the John Doe example above.

Secondly, the NY Times Biographical Service referenced here does not appear to be from a New York Times article. When I tried to find a match at NYTimes.com, using a quoted phrase from that article, I got:

"Demi Guynes was born in New Mexico" - did not match any documents under All Results Since 1851.

So if this article did not come from The New York Times, as was suggested it did, then where did it come from? I only make this point to show that it's not standard practice in academia or journalism to make claims when we don't know the original source from which something is reprinted — things get changed in transcription, printing and typographical errors get introduced, etc. Those are some reasons behind the larger issue: Responsible academia and journalism does not make claims unless we know the original source in full context. I would never dream of claiming something in print if I didn't know exactly where it came from — and this particular article doesn't appear to have come from The New York Times, according to the NYTimes.com search. I don't think anyone here would disagree when I say that an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than academia or journalism.

Apropos of this, I certainly would assume good faith of anyone who had downloaded the paywall articles and could see the full text in context. From what you're saying, my impression — and I could be wrong — is that these were not downloaded and examined for oneself. In all honesty, no responsible academic or journalist would make a claim based on search results without actually seeing the article itself. Internet searches, as we all know, turn up false hits, or hits for one thing even though an article may also say another thing. Please understand: If you haven't actually seen the full article yourself, then it's not a matter of assuming good faith; it's a matter of making a claim without having seen the full-text reference in context. A professor wouldn't accept that in a master's thesis; my copy desk wouldn't accept that, let alone my editor. Again, I don't think anyone here would disagree when I say that an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than academia or journalism.

Please accept my disagreement with an open mind and the knowledge that I mean no offense and that this isn't a nitpicky point: At the level of a Times or a Time Inc., we wouldn't put a statement in print about something as serious as someone's name based solely on Internet hits without seeing the text itself, or in the case of NYT Bio Service without knowing the source of the original article.

I've offered two different wordings so far. I understand you have issues both. Taking, please, what I've said into reasonable consideration, suggest a phrase with which you're comfortable, and we'll go again from there. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You really don't see what you're doing there do you? Firstly you state a single fact to demonstrate your point and say this fact "is not synthesis" - which is true. In the next paragraph you take two unconnected facts cite them both individually then make an original comparison between the facts which does not exist in either of the cites and say this is "no more synthesis than the [...] example above." it is because you're making that original comparison between the facts that you are asserting as factual yet not providing a source to verify that it's factual.

Your second point doesn't really prove anything, If I draw article titles out from the NYTBS book they all turn up in the NYTIMES search engine; the articles in the book are written by identifiable NYTimes journalists such as Bernard Holland, Richard Severo, JANET MASLIN and others. I don't have enough information at this time to identify the specific article (page 475 doesn't appear to have been indexed by Google Books) other than the fact it's about the film Mortal Thoughts, it was published around May 1991, and it's not the NYTimes official review of the film (which was altogether briefer and written by Ms. MASLIN) . It is more likely that the NYtimes.com site hasn't got this article for some other reason rather than the book being composed of non-NYtimes material. Either way we do know where we are stating it comes from, even if it may have come from somewhere else previously - in the case here your own research says that as far as we can tell at this time - the NYTimes has produced this material and released it only in this book so this is the source that should be cited, any wikipedian with access to this source through a university (or other library) is welcome to further improve the sourcing with additional details but Wikipedia has no deadline to achieve that; that this source exists, that it is reliable, and it verifies the fact it is cited against are good enough.

Sorry, but I have seen an abstract of each of these articles in context and have identified the claims made in them to be accurate. All of them make a claim that "Demi Guynes" was either her birth or childhood name, none of them identify her name as ever being "Demetria", all of them use Demi formally not casually - I have presented to you a small sample of each to show that my claims are correct yet you still find reasons to reject them. Again when you discuss Master Thesis, Copy Desk, etc you are missing the point - not that Wikipedia should have lower standards than academia or journalism; but that it does have different standards to academia and journalism. We are not a secondary source, we are not extracting meaning from the sources we cite, we are not analysing the sources we cite to weigh their arguments up, we are repeating their claims in our own words - it's a very different style of writing from either academia or journalism.

I have not raised any issues with either of your wordings - again you seem to be missing both my point and the point that has been entirely about sourcing - provided your statement is sourced in a way which is not Original research, is neutral, and does not unbalance the article then I don't really have strong feelings about what the wording is or should be. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be getting upset; your first paragraph opened very emotionally and I had a hard time following what you were trying to say in the rest of it. Synthesis requires a conclusion — which is the synthesis, the thing being synthesized. Saying "Some reliable sources say this and some reliable sources say that" is the opposite of synthesis, since it draws no conclusion.

Moving on: I called up the same abstracts you did, following the links you provided. Those abstracts do not say Demi Guynes — and unless one has the full article, I honestly don't see how anyone, without one or the other of those two things (either "Demi Guynes" in the abstract or the full article), could "have identified the claims made in them to be accurate."

RE: "It is more likely that the NYtimes.com site hasn't got this article for some other reason rather than the book being composed of non-NYtimes material." Your speculation of what may or may not be "more likely" is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But what you, personally, think is "likely" is not necessarily fact. The New York Times Syndicate has reprinted articles of mine that originally appeared in other newspapers and did not appear in The New York Times; from my journalistic experience I can provide an informed opinion that this book may contain such syndicated material, or even material from any of the myriad other publications the Times owns. Anyone without direct knowledge of its contents or a copy of the book simply cannot make claims about what they think the book contains.

I'm in no way suggesting the book's material is not from reliable sources; I'm simply saying that we don't know what the original sources are — and from a standpoint of journalistic ethics, at least, you can't use material if you don't know the original published source. Again, Wikipedia should not have lower standards than journalism.

About my asking you to supply wording you find acceptable: You've rejected two suggestions I've offered. I just don't know what could be fairer or more collaborative than to say, "OK, I'm not wedded to something; tell me how you would say it." I'm trying as hard as I can, and I don't think getting upset is necessary or helpful.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe someone else would like to suggest wording. AndyTheGrump and Δρ.Κ., at least, were approving of the 20:27, 29 December 2011 wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope I'm not upset, I'm making a point you are choosing not to hear. Stating that sources are "divided" on a subject is the synthesis you are making in your last wording. You are comparing the two sources and coming up with an original comparison ("Divided") - this is different from saying "some sources say A whilst other sources say B" which is just presenting the facts. As it happens we have a source that discusses such a conflict in sources but you are choosing not to use it, I'm suggesting that if you want to use a term like divided then you should be citing that division to a source and not synthesizing your own comparison.

Moving further on: If the extracts you are looking at (and I'm guessing you followed the links to the articles and are basing your opinion on the abstracts there) do not mention "Demi Guynes" then you're not looking at the same abstracts as I did - and no I do not have repeat access to those sources to extract a sample for printing here (Try WP:LIB), but I do know that the google link given above returns close enough extract in itself to show what I have read. the remainder of the article not shown in the google extracts is a little more biography (her marriage to freddy moore etc) and then discussion of her latest (at the time of writing) movie and her future aims. Certainly nothing that is relevant to our discussion here despite your claims otherwise.

A bit of searching shows that the NYTBS (originally the New York Times Biographical Edition) was a monthly journal published by the NYT, it had NYT articles reprinted from the paper, some AP material (small biographical notices such as obituaries, etc), and original NYT material written for the journal. It ran from 1970-2001 (changing names from edition to service in 82/83). The book is the collected volume of journals from 1991. It is cited directly in at least 20 Wikipedia articles as a reliable source and many universities advise citing it directly for writing reports on biographical subjects. Of course you could have done the research yourself, rather than relying on your "informed opinion" of a work you claim to have no experience of and is more speculation than my earlier research was. There may be more information to provide about the source (Again you can try WP:LIB), but waiting for that to come does not mean we have a lower standard than journalism we just have a different standard.

Once again I have not rejected any wording let alone two wordings - I have made suggestions about how best to cite the wordings you already have provided (which was what I was invited specifically to do) - you seem to want to dismiss these suggestions not on the grounds that the suggestions are unhelpful but that sources which you previously agreed with are now unreliable when they don't . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. As I've said all along, everyone is putting in the work and leaving no stone unturned to get this right.

First, "divided" is not a conclusion. Some sources say one thing, other sources say another. "Divided" is a description, not a conclusion. So you don't like the wording that includes "divided". As I've asked you to do — and given this, it's unfair and ironic for you to claim I'm not hearing you — what word would you then use to describe the plain fact that some sources say one thing and other sources say another?

That other Wikipedia articles use the NYT Bio journal rather than citing the original source is irrelevant; lots of Wikipedia articles are improperly cited, and we generally don't point to other Wikipedia articles as examples of how to do things. "Many universities advise citing it directly for writing reports on biographical subjects"? I find it a remarkable statement that "many" universities — and I'm curious where that conclusion came from — believe it's OK to not go to the original source. Perhaps those "many" universities are simply referring to those articles written specifically for the journal.

"I do know that the google link given above returns close enough extract...." This leaves me aghast. If an abstract doesn't say something, and you haven't seen the article, then you're citing Google hits as your footnotes! Who does that? Who cites Google hits rather than a work itself? I didn't want to phrase it this way before, but I need to be blunt: Nobody cites Google hits. Google hits are not citations!

I found your putting quote marks around "informed opinion", to suggest so-called informed opinion, to be snide. Why do that? I have tried to be as polite as possible. Yes, my opinion is informed, and I am saying, as politely as possible, that what you consider acceptable standards of footnote referencing is appalling. Let me use an analogy: You're a filmmaker. If I were to say to you, "This is the correct way to direct a film, and compose shots, and deal with actors" etc., and these are things you know that your producer or the Humane Society observer etc. would not allow, would not find acceptable. And yet I insist, "No, I'm absolutely right. I'm not a filmmaker, but your so-called informed opinion about filmmaking is wrong." How would you react to that? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's a description or a conclusion it doesn't matter; it is still original research synthesised from two opposing sources. Either you need to say "Sources such as A say whilst other sources such as B say" or you need to reference the description with a source that talks about the division - which has been my suggestion every time instead of suggesting changing the wording.

The NYT bio journal is an original source for some material, but why should we go to the Original source every time? An original source may be subject to later corrections or retractions that may not be seen if only the original source is shown - a later (even if only a monthly round-up) reprint of the article can have those corrections and retractions integrated into the text and is no more likely to suffer a lack of editorial oversight than the original print of the article is. In fact your argument for not using the Journal seems to be that errors will have crept into the transcript despite the exact same being true of any web version or even print errors in versions which have been transferred to microfilm. The Journal is cited in a number of research papers that I can see off hand (some of which are re-cited multiple other times) it is advised in books such as "A reference guide for English studies", "Writing the Research Paper: A Handbook ", "Reference sources in history: an introductory guide", and the research guides of numerous public and university libraries.

No one is suggesting citing Google hits - I'm providing google hits to verify that they show what I've seen in the sources - so that you don't have to take me on Good Faith alone. but if it pleases you and the google extract wasn't enough then the Chicago Tribune article which is the one I suggested however many posts ago reads:

She was born Demi Guynes in New Mexico. Her past has been well covered in media fascinated by her kind of against-the-odds success story. There was the relatively rootless upbringing by a struggling mother and a father who committed suicide when she was 17. She made her way into small acting roles via modeling and then a television soap opera. An early unsuccessful marriage to an aspiring rock musician, the elimination of drugs and alcohol from her life and a pair of milestone events-marrying Bruce Willis in 1987 and the success of `Ghost'-have marked her personal and professional progress.

— Jeff Hayward (January 17, 1993). "Taking Chances, Demi Moore Knows All About Risk And Controversy-and Seeks It".

There is nothing else of relevance to our discussion here beyond the " She was born Demi Guynes in New Mexico. " which was returned in the google hit - The same applies to the other articles I've mentioned as well which was the whole reason I showed the hits.

I put quote marks around "informed opinion" because I was quoting your phrase no more no less. Certainly any suggestion you may have picked up was purely unintentional. As for the rest of your point, I as a film-maker am forced to work on an exceedingly low budget; if you say to me "This is the correct way to direct a film, and compose shots, and deal with actors" then I would take take your suggestions into account - I don't have the resources to say to you "That's not the way things are done", I have to consider whether your suggestion will help the overall project. I also don't have studio backing, I don't have access to unlimited resources just as wikipedia as a project doesn't have the same access to resources that academia or journalism do - we are volunteers and we have to use whatever resources we can find in the best manner we can. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you value collaboration and that you express a willingness to listen to others. In this case, I ask you to listen not just to me but to AndyTheGrump and Δρ.Κ., who both agree that "Sources are divided" is not synthesis; indeed, you mention using the word "some", with Δρ.Κ. specifically objected to as a weasel word.

So with three editors agreeing to "sources are divided", are you really willing to respect these three out of four opinions, though they are not the same as yours?

Here is the discussion, with timesamps:

OK, how about this, strip it down, even simpler: "Sources are divided as to whether her birth name is Demetria[4 representative footnotes] or Demi[Stuart's 4 representative footnotes]. Moore says the latter.[2 tweets plus Bang Showbiz]."

The groupnote-footnote should go in the lead, however, next to first mention of her name. That's the logical place for any birth-name-related footnote. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That suggestion works well. I'd have no objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't mis-represent what Dr K. and Andy the Grump have said - neither agreed that "Sources are divided" is not synthesis; they said that they had no objections with your suggestion - that's a very different position . Indeed only Dr K has commented since I raised concerns about the synthesis you were suggesting and his only comment has been to say that he would be comfortable with using the Omaha World Herald to cite the disagreement of sources.
• I never used the word "Some" and if you believe otherwise I would ask that you show me where I said it?

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies on "some"; I misread.

I'm not misrepresenting anyone: Andy said "That suggestion works well" and Dr K agreed. You're suggesting that after all the work they've put in on this, they knowingly agreed to use disallowed synthesis — to do something they felt was wrong. Really?

Your position appears to be uncompromising and inflexible. Therefore, would you object to having a mediator? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "Some sources give Moore's birth name as Demetria,[4 representative footnotes] others as Demi[Stuart's 4 representative footnotes]. Moore says the latter is correct.[2 tweets plus Bang Showbiz]."? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely, totally OK with Andy's suggestion. Fairness compels me to mention that Dr. K did not like the word "some". Since we've referenced an earlier statement by him, I've alerted him, as I did Andy, to this latest discussion, and perhaps he'll comment and we can finally put this to rest.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I was asked to give suggestions and did so. My suggestion is that the sourcing could be tightened up with one for Demi and one from Demetria from the same press agency (i.e; two from the NYT stable, or two from the Chicago Tribune Stable), one source discussing the name difference (i.e; Omaha World Herald) and one with a quote from Demi herself (Bang Showbiz)- We don't need 11 or 12 sources to reference something this unimportant (in terms of secondary source coverage). If you really want a wording suggestion from me then how about "Sources such as the NYT(or Tribune) have given Moore's Birthname as either Demi [footnote] or Demetria[footnote]; Moore has stated that she has always been named Demi. [Bang Showbiz] <optional>In 2009, the Omaha World Herald questioned whether Moore's statements meant that Demi was her Birthname or that she had legally changed her name to Demi at a later stage.</option> Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot longer than what all the other editors have agreed to; since you and I aren't the only ones involved here, how about a one-sentence version? Also, by giving only one press agency, you're implying that that all agencies internally contradict themselves; that's untrue and misleading. Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly only give Demetria as her birth name.

All the other editors here want a short mention and more than a single footnote each. Please take that into consideration. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Andy's newest suggestion. Although I thank you for your consideration of my initial opposition to the word "some", I think in this context it is appropriate and so I drop my objection to its use if that helps advance consensus on this matter. Thank you also for the courtesy of notifying me. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And thank you as well for taking the time. I know this has dragged on. Collaboration is what it's all about!

Three editors — myself, AndyTheGrump and λόγος — have agreed on a wording ... bridging, may I say, significant differences over a large amount of time and effort in order to reach a good-faith compromise together. At this point, I think it's fair to go to the RfC noticeboard for this item and ask if an admin would look at this and offer a disinterested outside opinion.

Here again is Andy's wording, which has garnered support from λόγος and myself:

"Some sources give Moore's birth name as Demetria,[4 representative footnotes] others as Demi[Stuart's 4 representative footnotes]. Moore says the latter is correct.[2 tweets plus Bang Showbiz]."?

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you remove the <optional> section it's only slightly longer (35 characters at most) than either your or Andy's suggestion, contained in one sentence, and I feel slightly more concise than either of the other two however it can easily be tweaked to reduce it further. Time Inc's Time Magazine gives Demi Guynes (Time: Almanac, Authors: Borgna Brunner, Time Magazine, Years: every from 2001-2007 at minimum Linky) so yes all of the agencies we've discussed here have internally contradicted themselves - it's neither untrue or misleading.. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said "Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly" have been consistent in their terminology. You bring in a different magazine. I think it is absolutely remarkable you expect a comprehensive analysis from every single magazine and other publication that Time Inc. publishes. Really now.

Since three of the four editors who have remained in this discussion have agreed upon wording; I am going to ask an admin to weigh in. You are the lone holdout, and it is unfair to expect a hard-won consensus to dissolve based on a single editor's dissent. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly hasn't been consistent, - linky and People only has 1 actual article (plus 2 trivia quizzes which are hardly reliable sources) that discuses her real name so it's not hard to be consistent when it only has to be within a single article. I don't think it's fair for a single editors proximity to the articles being cited to create a mountain out of a molehill about this living person. Your consensus is formed on assuming Good Faith in the sources I have already provided - sources you have repeatedly challenged - you have also asked for my input and continue to be upset about the fact I have given it, let it go and feel free to get someone to close this RFC that's how they work - They can neutrally weigh up all our discussions mine, yours, Andy's, and Dr K's, everyone else and decide where we go from here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sakes. That's a trivia item, too, and not an article. It gets very frustrating when it feels as if you have to tutor someone on such basic facts as that magazines don't just contain reportorial articles but also quizzes, crossword puzzles, trivia lists, horoscopes and other ephemera.

Regardless, all this is irrelevant now. We have three editors who have spent a great deal of time here and have found consensus wording. You are the only person dissenting. Wikipedia operates on consensus. I have posted a request for an admin to have a look and render an opinion, as is proper to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to tutor me on anything the points are as follows like People, Entertainment Weekly has only given a Birth name for Ms. Moore in one article - even then it was a trivial mention in an article that has nothing to do with Moore. So your claim that any Press Agency (Time Inc), is consistent was false, your claim that EW was consistent is unsupported, your claim that People was consistent is unsupported. Your claims about the reliability of Chris Nashawaty seems misplaced as he has not be consistent in his own stating of Ms Moore's birthname. I still fail to see the need to use 12 different sources to footnote this piece of ephemera when clearly there is no significance to the issue outwith the wikidrama here.

Please check WP:Consensus - ""Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean "unanimity" (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it a vote. It means that the decision-making process involves an effort to incorporate editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting our norms." and "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing." I have raised what I believe to be legitimate concerns none of which have been seriously challenged or have been attempted to incorporate into the proposal - The closing admin is just as likely to incorporate my viewpoint as to use Andy's proposal verbatim. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The only one dissenting? Don't forget those of us who don't think Demetria needs to be mentioned at all, but have declined to spend hours upon hours arguing about it.--Taylornate (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said: the only one dissenting out of those of us still here putting in the work, time and effort. Everyone is welcome to join the discussion.

What I've seen from Stuart.Jamieson is someone who refuses to compromise or respect any other editor's opinion, who simply wants his own way, who gives inaccurate lectures on the English language to a professional journalist, and who accused Andy and Dr. K of going against their conscience and agreeing to something they didn't believe in, which they came back here to refute.

"none of which have been seriously challenged or have been attempted to incorporate into the proposal"? I and farther up the page others have challenged his reasoning, and I specifically went to Stuart's talk page to ask him to incorporate his views and concerns.

Despite that good-faith gesture, all he has shown is patronizing contempt and an obstinate, disrespectful attitude toward me and other editors. His picayune minutiae that misses the larger issue, and his citing of Google hits as references, defy WP:COMMONSENSE. All he wants is to have his own way, whereas even Andy, with whom I have had differences, will surely agree I've worked long and hard to find accurate compromise wording. Stuart does not seem to believe in the concept. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you said it means you think it is somehow relevant but it's not. I've stated my view and it will be considered whether I join the discussion or not. SJ's view will be considered too. The rest of your post is full of irony. This discussion is only happening because you want to get your way. The fact that you are a professional journalist is completely irrelevant on WP. The only reason you and Andy are not still going back and forth with patronizing contempt and obstinate, disrespectful attitude is because I stopped it. There is no larger issue here. The entire point of the discussion is picayune minutiae that defies WP:COMMONSENSE.--Taylornate (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Taylornate, I couldn't have summed it up better myself. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Except for the part where he pretends that The New York Times, Time Inc. and other major, world-class publications and publishers, highly RS sources, disagree with him. Burying one's head in the sand and pretending something we disagree with doesn't exist is just the opposite of WP:COMMONSENSE. In any case, I've posted a request for an admin. Can we please stop bickering until an admin weighs in? For the sake of argument, I'll agree with everything you're saying — I'm clueless and don't know anything about biography or Wikipedia. But even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. So can we wait for an admin, please? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not common sense, that's your sense as a journalist. Common sense says a person knows what her own name is and sometimes the papers get things wrong and errors perpetuate. Unless you have a source that acknowledges Moore's statement and specifically challenges it, you don't really have a source that disagrees with me. Do you at least have a source more recent than the Twitter posts? Who knows, they might even print a correction if someone brought it to their attention. Also, your continued use of sarcasm is not helping you as you play the victim of incivililty.--Taylornate (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If I were being sarcastic, I would not have said, "For the sake of argument." That common phrase means, "I'll take your side on something for the moment so that we don't argue about that particular point and we can move the discussion along." Please don't make unfounded accusations.

Secondly, asking someone to prove something is not true is not a valid form of argument in any sense. Any self-published source can say anything they like; it's not automatic veto power over facts that major WP:RS publications have reported for years without retraction or correction. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was the line beginning I'm clueless that I took as sarcastic. If I was wrong then I apologize. I don't have any more to add to the discussion at this point.--Taylornate (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Include Demetria I agree with the suggestions to mention both names as so well stated by others. There is only so much research that can reasonably be done and there are reliable sources in support of mentioning both names. The important point is to mention the two different findings. Ultimately, this is one sentence at most.Coaster92 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"one sentence at most" -- I completely agree. The most recent version above can have a semicolon make it one sentence.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Include Demetria I'm not sure I even understand why this is a question. This information is out there in reputable magazines and newspapers. Wikipedia can't just ignore something the NYtimes and People have been reporting for years. People see "Demetria" and come here to see what's what, and we can't just say nothing. --108.21.104.134 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but at this point, as another editor said, no one's ignoring it. We're just working on proper wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Demetria we do not perform original research and we simply can report that between year x and year x her birth name was reported as Demetria in publication x, but in year x it was reported as Demi on twitter. This is the most neutral and unbias approach here. If there is any information in reliable sources that she or someone claimed or reported it as one or the other inaccurately and why, that would be very helpful. I do express concern that twitter would in any way be considered more reliable than numerous and historical RS over time. Old sources are good sources because they show history and this is an encyclopedia that documents that history.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Twitter isn't really the source, Demi Moore is the source. Why is it concerning to you that she should be a reliable source for her own name?--Taylornate (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Matter of WP:SPS. No one has automatic veto power to make claims that change facts they don't like. If she tweeted that her age was 39, that doesn't change the years of reporting otherwise about her age. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If she tweeted her age was 39, that would be unduly self-serving. She has no motive to lie about her birth name. Clearly a different situation.--Taylornate (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, It's a matter of WP:BLP not WP:SPS. We allow several different routes for BLP's to veto facts that are untrue about themselves. Arbitration, OTRS, and directly contact the foundation are given if the change can't be enacted through normal editing. In this case there is no reason why a correction cannot be made through normal editing. Taylornate raises a good point but beyond that we are not talking about a case where there is a consensus of sources against the claim by the BLP (as you present in your example). Here we have a minority of (generally reliable) sources (which have not even shown internally consistency) being presented as having weight in comparison to a 30 years worth of coverage in a majority of reliable sources and personal comments including an interview with the BLP herself. Please remember that no source is 100% reliable and that the reliability of the source is judged against the claim being made - no matter what the qualifications of the journalists/researchers writing the articles claiming Demetria they are not as reliable as Demi is when it comes to knowing what her own name is. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe we're re-arguing this. You make an incredible assumption by saying "veto facts that are untrue about themselves" — because from all indications that I'm seeing as a professional, "Demetria" is not an untrue fact. Making a pronouncement as if you have divine knowledge and everyone else is wrong is quite remarkable. No journalist would take a source at face value when decades of reliable sourcing says otherwise. Wikipedia should not have lower standards than journalism.

And I've kept my counsel on something else, but given the extraordinary pronouncement here: I went back to my 1992 interview with her, and per my notes there, her 1978 yearbook photo from Frazier High School in Perryopolis, Pa., says "Demetria Guynes". After 19 years, I don't have the original source of that information — I'm certain it appeared in a print article, since 1992 was well before the Internet had any mainstream presence — so I can't cite that article, but the fact that she was Demetria Guynes in 1978 should have significant weight in the mind of any trained biographer, journalist or academic.

Or maybe it's not OR, now that I think about it. The yearbook is presumably available in the school library.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating policy - if a BLP states that any fact about them is untrue then there are policy compliant steps they can choose to take to change that - despite any number of years worth of reporting in (usually) reliable sources. I am making no such pronouncement about Demi Moore, because I am not privy to any "divine knowledge" please stop this misrepresentation - all I can do is weigh up the sources available to me both for "Demi" and for "Demetria". Also you have so far failed to show that "decades of reliable sourcing says otherwise" a few sources within the past 20 years have made this claim on occasion it is not consistent and continuous reporting and you cannot be sure that these sources are reliable (in a wikipedia sense) for this fact.

The unknown I.P. that made comments both here and at BLPN mentioned Frazier High School - Was this you not logged in? That said my own High School Yearbook contains an error on my entry deliberately entered by the editorial team as a joke - I would certainly not consider Frazier High School's yearbook reliable and would not want to risk quoting a joke designed to make her name more pretentious or whatever. Prior to 1978, her classmates at Hillcrest Jr High (1976) and Redondo High (1977) have spoken about how her name in those yearbooks was recorded as Demi - which seems to be more reliable than some note you made 19years ago about a yearbook you don't remember personally accessing but might have been reported in a print article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact; scanned from her 1977 Redondo Yearbook. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, some anonymous IP was not me: How dare you.

You are indeed making an assumption — assuming, with what seems to be unjustified 100 percent certainly, that one name and not the other is correct. And your suggestion that The New York Times and Time Inc. are not "reliable (in a wikipedia sense)" is, again, simply remarkable.

Yearbooks can have many variations on a name: James can be Jim one year and not another; absolutely likewise, a person may give her name as Demetria one year and Demi in another. Your point is irrelevant. And your Redondo link took me to a blank page.

And your final point re: "might have been reported" betrays of the lack of good faith that I have come to expect from you. Long, long, long years before this controversy ever came up, I wrote in my notes that her birth name was "Demetria." Might have been reported? Do you think I made that up that particular odd name? Or that of all the possible variations of a formal name for "Demi" that this yearbook and the Times, Time Inc. etc. would use that exact same name?

You earlier claimed that if someone completely unversed in film directing were to come onto your set and tell you things about film directing that you knew were wrong, you'd keep an open mind. No: You don't even keep an open mind when a professional journalist is telling you that your lack of knowledge of journalism is leading you to say remarkably uninformed things.

Start showing some good faith by, at a bare minimum, not making unjustified accusations.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you're offended, but it was just a question as it's an odd coincidence that the IP was focussing on the single article from People and the same yearbook entry. If I had started a SPI I could see why you would take offence but I'm not allowed to as a question now?

I'm not assuming one is correct, I'm weighing up the sources I have in front of me with no professional bias and seeing that one name carries more weight and I do think that The New York Times and Time Inc are reliable for one claim but is it or those articles where these same sources claim "Demi" as her birthname or is it for those articles where these sources with apparent equal accuracy claim that "Demetria" is her birthname? Only in one of these cases is the source reliable for the claim it is making - this is why in a wikipedia sense, a source is only considered reliable in relation to the claim it makes and not considered absolutely reliable or not. Earlier on in this thread you complained that I was "hiding my head in the sand" - I'm not, I acknowledge that the New York Times and Times Inc have made "Demetria" claims however I question whether they are reliable for any birth name claim (demi, demitria, demetria, etc) given that they have both also made "Demi" claims. This has to be weighed up and not just included because New York Times or Time Inc. have to be reliable just because you (or any other editor) feel that they are.

Indeed your point about Yearbooks was exactly mine against your claim of Demetria at Frazier high, Sorry about the link to the image - I can't seem to link it directly and the orginal ebay item has been removed from their server - however the yearbook shows her name as Demi Guynes. I suppose I could upload it to an FTP server somewhere if you wish to see it.

Sorry again, but it is you yourself who says "I don't have the original source of that information — I'm certain it appeared in a print article" so it may have been in a print article but you don't have the original source to be sure. And I have no doubt you saw it somewhere - it had already been mentioned in newsmakers in 1991 and that takes its material from mass media so it was certainly mentioned in the mass media even if you can't remember where you picked it up. And Times and Time Inc did not use "Demetria" till a while after your article and they may be basing their coverage on the same print article you based your notes but we don't know and we can't assume so we have no way to know how accurate any of these claims are - but we do have plenty of verifiable primary sources now for "Demi" that confirm the secondary sources making that claim; and still none for Demetria this affects the weight of what we should/shouldn't include. Time Inc has continued to use Demi as a birthname in works associated with Time Magazine though does not (as far as I can see) appear to have discussed her birthname in the actual magazine its self.

The whole problem I see is that you are looking at this like a journalist and not as an encyclopaedia writer, as well as which you appear to be too close to some of the sources being cited and whilst not specifically covered by WP:COI it strays close to the border of it.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a middle ground in a moment, but first, please stop accusing me of a lack of ethics. I do not know Demi Moore, I spent 45 minutes with her once professionally with a publicist in the room, and I have no conflict-of-interest whatsoever regarding Demi Moore. None of the publication items I've been citing were written by me.

I have know idea what "you are looking at this like a journalist and not as an encyclopaedia writer" even means. First, I've written for a film encyclopedia, so I have been an encyclopedia writer professionally, thank you very much. Secondly, standards of research are not supposed to be lower for an encyclopedia than for journalism, so journalistic standards should be the very least we should aspire to.

Let's strip all this away. Are we really arguing over substance, or just arguing over each other's personality? I think we're both intelligent, and from what you say, we have no argument that reliable sources have variously given "Demi" and "Demetria" as her birth name. That's certainly all I'm saying. While I personally believe "Demetria" is correct, I'm not advocating that at all: I'm advocating for what you seem to be saying as well — that reliable sources have reported both. Other editors here say likewise, and given the sourcing, that much seems incontrovertibly true. So what exactly are we arguing about? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a good question. Somewhere along the line I stopped reading these long exchanges, but the constant question in my mind was: What is this about? I didn't know the answer at the time these long discussions started and I still don't. So, can we please refocus on adding that little note and forget these long debates? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But the RFC isn't solely focused on adding that little note it's; "how best to balance Demi Moore's [...] statements that 'Demi' is her birth name in light of [...] reporting in [...] publications that her birth name is 'Demetria.'" and an RFC should be debated on the sources we have access to and how policy dictates we use those sources. Balancing up we have multiple choices and these have all been put forward by differing editors.

1. There is doubt about all secondary sources -so make no mention of her birthname. (least harm)
2. Secondary Sources for Demi and self identification for Demi carry more weight than secondary sources for Demetria. Only one secondary source discusses the name discrepancy, so it is not notable - only mention Demi.
3. Secondary Sources for Demi and self identification for Demi balance the secondary sources for Demetria so is notable - mention both
4. Secondary Sources for Demetria outweigh self identification for Demi. One secondary source discusses the name discrepancy, so is not notable - mention only Demetria

Then if mentioning both we have:

1. Only one secondary source discusses the name discrepancy, so it is not notable - leave a hidden note asking editors to gain consensus on talk page before changing birth name.
2. Only one secondary source discusses the name discrepancy, so it is only slightly notable - mention in footnote.
3. The weight of sources in both cases is strong enough for the subject to be notable - mention in body

All of this needs to be weighed up to find consensus it's certainly not an RFC to solely find the wording of the footnote. Personally I'm still undecided - I previously suggested the use of a footnote but the more sources I find (and I'm stil looking); the more unreliable I believe the reporting of Demetria to be, and like Taylornate and Yworo I truly doubt whether there is enough relevance to even mention Demetria in a footnote despite the fact it has been reported in some usually reliable sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Yearbok issue, I can confirm that as well as Redondo Union High, she is listed as "Demi Guynes" in the yearbook for Fairfax High - I'm confused now about the claim she was in the 1978 frazier High yearbook as all sources suggest that she was at Frazier at a younger age (though she's not in the 1973 Frazier yearbook which lists all pupils - so I would need to find a 74 or 75 one to confirm.) and that she dropped out of Fairfax in 78. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess we have no middle ground at all. The RfC is absolutely to find the wording of a footnote. If you want a different RfC about the validity of The New York Times and whether yearbook editors put in joke entries, as you've suggested, you're welcome to start one.

1) It is incontrovertible that high-WP:RS sources including but not limited to The New York Times and Time Inc. have reported "Demetria" as her birth name, going back to at least 1996 and certainly before that, as I learned in 1992.

2) Likewise, it is incontrovertible that high-WP:RS sources including but not limited to The Chicago Tribune and The Boston Globe have reported "Demi" as her birth name. Moore states this now also, which is given proper weight but does automatically undo decades of reporting any more than if she gave her age as 39. According to People in 1996, she had stated "Demetria" in the past. No retractions or corrections have been issued by the Times, Time Inc., etc.

3) We cannot ignore the issue since it has been reported variously this way for decades and we need to address it for anyone coming to Wikipedia looking for information about it.

4) A number of editors have found wording that states the above incontrovertible facts in one sentence.

5) One editor takes an extreme position and is now trying to mischaracterize the RfC by claiming it is something that anyone who reads the RfC box can see that it is not.

Stuart wants only to have his own way, as characterized by his professionally uninformed and grammatically incorrect opinion that "the more sources I find (and I'm stil looking); the more unreliable I believe the reporting of Demetria to be." At least one professional journalist with more than 30 years' experience including a weekly syndicated newspaper column interviewing actors, directors, etc., has a different opinion. Yet Stuart believes his opinion carries more weight than that of anyone else in this discussion — not equal weight, but more weight. He is uninterested in finding a reasonable compromise solution.

Stuart will now reply with more uncompromising convolutions. This will require response and the cycle will continue, with virtually all other editors frustrated and having removed themselves from the discussion. At this point I can only conclude it will continue like this until 30 days are up and some poor admin will try to wade through these thousands of words. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lordy. Is this still going on? I was sure we had reached a good compromise. For what it's worth, I support anything you can agree to, any of the above suggestions mentioning multiple reliable sources calling her Demetria, either in main text or footnote, short or long, pretty much any phrasing. Feel free to cite me in support of any of them. --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA - "Comment on the content not the contributor"; The last time you did it, I asked that if you had a personal issue with me you do so at the correct forum this is not it yet you have done it here again..

This RFC statement does not mention a footnote; in fact the first serious comments to the RFC are about making no mention of Demetria, AndyThe Grump is the first to suggest a footnote in response to Youreallycan's suggestion of removing Demetria from the lead. So don't turn around now and say "The RfC is absolutely to find the wording of a footnote." follow the proper RFC process and acknowledge how that process works.

An RFC works by discussing based on Policy and Sources not opinions (though opinions may be given) repeating the same argument and the same two sources adds nothing to the discussion. Presenting new sources and questioning the reliability of other sources is all part of the DR process (andwithin the first three layers of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement as is assessing all sources in terms of policy - in this case particularly Biographies of Living Persons and Verifiability.

If you can present strong and compelling sources or relevant policy to change my view then I welcome your input, but repeatedly saying Times, or Time Inc as if that fact should carry all the weight does not make it so. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't to me, was it? I could have sworn I didn't make any personal attacks... Stuart, if it were to be a footnote, would that be good enough for you? Not "would you prefer it", but "could you live with it"? Because we're trying to seek consensus here, and if we can get at least acceptance, if not agreement, from everyone involved that's more important than that the original proposal not change. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he was referring to me. Stuart: Your literal-mindedness is not helping anything move forward. "Comments are requested on how best to balance Demi Moore's recent Twitter statements that 'Demi' is her birth name in light of two decades' reporting in WP:RS publications that her birth name is 'Demetria'." Virtually no one's rearguing about whether or not to mention Demetria at all except you — the vast majority of editors here are settled on a compromise wording; see the exasperated GRuban (15:46, 10 January 2012) and Δρ.Κ. (19:32 4 January 2012). With you, however, The New York Times and Time Inc. are suddenly not reliable sources because they disagree with your POV. You are being pigheaded (a word I note you didn't object to when it was applied to me, so let's not have a double standard) and stonewalling, and at this point, after the plethora of other editors who have agreed to basic compromise wording, you are being more disruptive of Wikipedia process than you are anything else. Given some of the things you've said about major world-class publications and about how there's apparently rampant practical-joke misnaming in yearbooks, I think I've keep a relatively cool head overall, after more than 20,000 words have been spent on this. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

GRuban, no it was an Edit Conflict that put my comment after yours but it was indented to reply to Tenebrae. "Could I live with it"? I even proposed it when I first came here from BLPN my problem is this - On the 28th of December, I noticed an internal consistency in the sources being presented for the Demetria claim in the footnote. I asked Tenebrae how we can use the sources presented for Demetria when those sources were internally inconsistent. He brushed it off and despite being posed it time and again he continues to brush it off with comments claiming things like "The New York Times and Time Inc. are suddenly not reliable sources because they disagree with your POV." In fact the question still remains that they don't agree with their own point of view so which POV are they reliable for - yet the reply still seems to be made that it's solely for Demetria. When asked to comment again on the wording, I suggested that this internal consistency be addressed by simply putting both views from a single source - This was met with the claim that the idea that showing this internal consistency is misleading despite every news agency represented exemplifying it. I also suggested that we should be citing the one source that actually discusses the fact that Demi's tweets differ from some recent sources so that we weren't creating an OR situation - even though there has been only one objector to this - I've been accused of of "suggesting that after all the work they've put in on this, they knowingly agreed to use disallowed synthesis — to do something they felt was wrong." which clearly I did not. Since then I've now seen two primary sources that support the Demi claim and which again have been dismissed - However I think it's reasonable that these can be weighed up on the Demi side as well. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Fairfax-High-School/423|work=Fairfax High School Yearbook|year=1978|page=28}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Redondo-Union-High-School/2843?page=220 |work=Redondo High School Yearbook|year=1977|page=220}}</ref>

In short, "Could I live with it?" - Yes if we're not hiding the reliability issues of the sources and not engaging in original research in order to present the footnote then I could live with it - but if we have to break policy and guideline when we don't have to then I'd rather support Yworo and Taylornate and have no footnote or mention of Demetria. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's breaking policy or guidelines except you for suggesting we use a user-submitted website such as Classmates.com. Good gravy. That's the latest in a string of your eccentric comments that baffle me.

The majority of editors have agreed to a compromise that makes common sense in that it doesn't blithely ignore decades of reporting in high-WP:RS publications like The New York Times and Time Inc. By suggesting we ignore then, you are indeed calling them unreliable sources.

Here's something constructive: "Her birth name as been reported to be either Demi [two representative footnotes] or Demetria [2 representative footnotes]." Twelve words, absolutely factual, absolutely accurate, absolutely contextual. Even simpler wording than what AndyTheGrump, Dr. K, GRuban and I don't know who else have agreed to. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's perfect, Tenebrae. As you said, it's factual and accurate. It is also simple and concise. 68.125.68.179 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, for goodness sake; no-one is suggesting we use classmates.com as a source but it contains an archive of non-user-submitted site vetted sources called Yearbooks which can be cited directly - These are primary sources but primary sources can be useful in drawing out truth from secondary sources. At this point I should point out that a while ago you made a similar claim about "Citing Google Hits" of course I wasn't doing that either - I was citing sources (some of which I had gone through a 24hour paywall to get) but using google to show you the only relevant information within the full source. Belittling other users and attacking other users is not part of the RFC process.

As I've said before; on wikipedia reliability is judged on the claim made - not across the board. They are reliable for the claim that they have said her birth name was Demetria and also for the claim that they have said her birth name was Demi. As general sources they are generally reliable however since they contradict themselves, they are demonstrably unreliable when it comes to making a claim of what her birthname actually was. For the same concern I would not use the NYT BS to cite the name Demi Gene Guynes in the infobox/lead. I still have access to the Virginian Pilot`s article claiming that she was:

Born Demi Guynes, she grew up ``a fat little dork with strange, cat-like glasses.`` She wore an eye patch to help correct a walleye, and she still has trouble with the vision in her right eye.

— MAL VINCENT (October 18, 1995). "GIMME MOORE $12.5 MILLION-A-FILM ACTRESS IS KNOWN FOR GETTING HER WAY IN HOLLYWOOD". The Virginian-Pilot. p. E1. Retrieved January 11,2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

but most of the others I only had 24hour or abstract access to so can't quote here.

Why is it whenever I question the sourcing you turn it around to the wording? I don't see anyone here arguing about the wording. changing the wording is a question for those already agree with you about the wording, those who have said there should be no mention or those who believe that any mention should be in the body are not discussing what the wording should be. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're saying The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Va., is a reliable source and The New York Times and Time Inc. are NOT? On top of everything else, you're citing a Google hit for an abstract, and we don't know if this small-town reporter even talked with her or was just doing a cut-and-paste article. If you consider that more reliable than The New York Times etc., this is has reached a point of craziness.

It is incontrovertible that reliable sources from including The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly have given her birth name as either Demetria or Demi — the latter, I suspect, simply from using the short form like saying "John" instead of "Jonathan," but that's my own supposition and beside the point.

The majority of the editors in this discussion have agreed to note that reliable sources have reported her name in both ways. Two editors who have long dropped out of this discussion want no mention of Demetria at all. I have no idea what you want. All I know is that from Dec. 27 on, you have done virtually nothing else than obsess over this!

You are one person, whose opinion carries no more weight than that of any other editor here, despite that you clearly think otherwise.

The majority of editors here are for the wording that recognizes that her name has been reported both ways. You do not have veto power over that consensus, which uses common sense in the face of all these verifiable reliable sources. Do you agree or disagree that we should give both names? Yes or no. There's no other issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae: If someone leaves a comment and moves on, they have used the RFC correctly. Their words are not discarded because they have dropped out of discussion. You are the only one I recall behaving as if your opinion should carry extra weight, citing numerous times your status as a professional journalist. Objectively, you are more obsessed than anyone else who has commented, given that you started the RFC and have been highly active throughout. If you truly believe that someone else is obsessed and you aren't, you should really take a step back and look at this monstrosity. You created it. You continue to say the same things over and over again, ignoring my comments completely: (1) Stating birth name is not comparable to lying about your age. (2) The most WP:COMMONSENSE thing you can say about this situation is that a person knows her own name.

You have explicitly stated that you believe majority to be synonymous with consensus. That is incorrect.--Taylornate (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I not acknowledge that you and another editor whom Stuart named are against "Demetria"? I did indeed state this explicitly.

If you're saying it's obsessive to begin an RfC, that's tarring thousands of editors who have started RfCs. If anyone's obsessive, it's the editor who has touched virtually no other page but this since Dec. 27 one while many of us continue to make constructive contributions across the board.

It is absolutely incorrect to say I believe my opinion as a professional carries more weight. Why? Because my opinion in that respect is that her birth name is clearly Demetria. Yet am I pushing that as my professional opinion? No. I have done nothing but seek compromise.

You're confused as to the discussion. It's not about what she personally says she calls herself. It's whether to acknowledge or ignore that reliable-source publications have stated her birth name two ways. Surely, you're not disagreeing with the confirmable reality that everyone here, Stuart included, acknowledges: That publications from The New York Times and The Boston Globe to Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly have reported it two ways. Surely you're not saying this isn't true? Look below; we have links: You can see for yourself this statement is unquestionably true. Denying incontrovertible reality is what doesn't make sense.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

At User talk:Dweller today, Stuart.Jamieson has declared he is going to unilaterally change the direction of the RfC. (Specific phrase: "taking the RFC in another direction".) No one can unilaterally declare that he's throwing out everything everyone else has worked hard on and change the existing question and discussion to something he likes better. If Jamieson wants to start another RfC, he's perfectly entitled to. But unilaterally declaring he's going to change the existing one to something he likes better? That is one of the most remarkably presumptuous things I've ever heard on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

Tenebrae has claimed to be seeking a neutral solution so I ask this question of neutrality and relevance. If Demi had said on twitter that her birthname was Demetria, how would we have "balanced Demi Moore's recent Twitter statements that "Demetria" is her birth name in light of two decades' reporting in WP:RS publications that her birth name is "Demi"? Would any editor suggesting above that we should have a footnote (or mention in the body); equally have suggested that we should have a footnote (or mention in the body) stating that sources such as the Times, Tribune, and Time Inc have given her birthname as simply "Demi"? Surely if this is a matter of neutrality then the 3 decades worth of reporting of this fact would have had to be mentioned to remain neutral? If not then why is it suddenly an issue when she declares that her nbirthname was Demi in the face of the few sources stating otherwise? In terms of relevance and our policy in relation to it; I ask is it relevant to Demi Moore's Life and Work that a handful of sources have made a mistake when reporting a fact about her. Our Policy on Due Weight suggests that if the mistake was reported as a mistake by commonly accepted reference texts or by prominent adherents; then mention should be made. For instance in the case previously given of Nicki Minaj's Age many sources including the likes of VH1 discussed the fact that she had been lying about her age - The view that she had been lying was held by the majority of sources. In this case we have one source - an extremely small minority, questioning the meaning of her texts in relation to other sources. If it has not been noted by other sources then our own policies state that it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia.. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things. One: Why would Stuart.Jamieson demean my integrity and suggest that if she had tweeted "Demetria" that I would not have advocated a compromise acknowledging that highly reliable major publications have reported the name both ways? That is a completely uncalled-for, unwarranted and insulting accusation.

Second: "if the mistake was reported as a mistake" makes incredible leap-of-logic presumptions. Though he lacks omniscience, Jamieson believes he alone can declare which specific one of these names is a mistake, or that a mistake was made at all. Additionally, he ascribes to other editors the position that they feel she is lying, when it's eminently possible — few of us having seen our own birth certificates — that one can say something erroneous that we genuinely believes to be true. And there are other possibilities as well. No responsible journalist would take a source's word as the end-all, be-all word of God when decades of reporting in highly reliable major publications say something different. And an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than journalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I'd not have thought the second case would have been an issue. "Demi" seems a common abbreviation for "Demetria", and it's normal for people to be widely known by their abbreviated name - see, for example, Jimmy Carter, and Jack Kennedy. In that case, I'd be supporting something like was done for those articles, leading with Demetria "Demi" Moore ... The reverse is much less common, so needs better references. --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wikipedia is still the only source on the internet claiming her birth name is Demi. (This, after years of Demetria). It's astounding that this fact was changed on the basis of one "tweet" when for many years her publicist, agent, and Ms. Moore herself in interviews, etc., has said she was born Demetria. I think it's high time the article was changed back to Demetria as birth name, or at the very least, put somewhere in the article that many sources claim Demetria as birth name. 68.124.177.188 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide citations for either Ms Moore, or her agent, stating that her name is Demetria? I've not seen any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Me neither. In fact, we even have sources stating that her name has never been Demetria. Nymf _hideliho! 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. That's what the entire conversation has been about on this talk page - there have been more than 20 years of interviews and articles and never once in all that time has there been a retraction or claim by Demi that her birth name was not Demetria as stated in the articles. You two have been pushing for your way to the exclusion of reason and rationality. It's really sad the personal investment you have in pushing your point of view. It's also sad that an article can be changed on the basis of a Twitter "tweet" and if we start using what people tweet about themselves instead of unbiased sources, all the articles will follow this one in becoming equally unreliable. So you can be happy and gloat that you got your way, although it's to Wikipedia's detriment. 68.122.13.179 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There are non-Twitter sources for it as well. I also think you need to re-read the discussion if you think I have put any massive personal investment in this, as I have made maybe 4 comments in total on this page since the last part was archived. Grow up, silly! Nymf _hideliho! 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a rude and insulting remark, Nymf. Don't call names or cast aspersions, it isn't becoming or professional. 68.124.177.129 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that was insulting. If anything, your comment was extremely rude and degrading! Nymf _hideliho! 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there really an argument over whether Demi Moore is a reliable source for her own name? Age maybe, birth place in certain situations, but what has she got to gain by lieing about her name. Just because a reliable source made a mistake does not mean that we need to repeat it here. Surely people must realise how silly "Although disputed by Moore,[2] many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria" sounds. Put it in a footnote if it must go in, but it should not be in the main body of the text. AIRcorn (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is... there are many posts on this; it has been suggested that her Twitter tweets may be handled by someone else, just as her other publicity is. One has to wonder why she has never publicly refuted any of the many articles on her that give her name as Demetria in the past 20 years. 68.124.177.129 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an interview where she refutes it as well. It is linked in the conversation here somewhere. Nymf _hideliho! 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, we don't base articles on 'suggestions' and on what 'one has to wonder'. As for why she hasn't 'refuted' this earlier, I'd speculate myself that as a person in the public eye, she is well aware that the media get their facts wrong all the time, and chooses not to spend her whole life trying to correct them. Quite likely, the whole issue is of considerably less concern to her than it is to some Wikipedia contributors, who seem to be obsessed with finding deep explanations for shallow trivia, and have to 'explain' everything by assuming that someone somewhere has an ulterior motive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the guessing game can go both ways. All that matters now is that she has refuted the Demetria birth name. If something substantial comes out about her interview or tweet being a mistake then we can change it back, but we should present the most accurate information that we have at this time. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We are at 23,000 words and it has been 40 days since this was started. No comments now for over a week. Is it time to close this? AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's still ongoing, through mediation by an admin at User:Dweller/Demi Moore. Admin User:Dweller needs to be consulted. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a mediation case in someones userpage being run in parallel to an open RFC? AIRcorn (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It had appeared that a compromise agreement had been reached, but an outstanding issue remained that had hit an impasse here, and an admin offered to mediate it. The mediation is an extension of this RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So I wasted my time reading the bullshit above to comment on what I thought was a honest attempt to get others input, but instead the issue is being decided in private by just three editors. Close this before doing something like that, or at the very least say something here. For christs sake no wonder participation at RFC is so low. Consensus here at the talk page, where it matters, is to say Demi so I will remove the mention of Demtria. You three can sort out the issue with the footnote however you want, I have wasted enough time already. I am also removing the rfc tag so no one else has to look at this mess, AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I asked for mediation in an attempt to curb the personal attacks I was receiving from Tenebrae - not so that result could be decided by just three editors. I also notified this RFC that the mediation was starting on the 19th of January [13] and Tenebrae removed it from this talk page - I then requested at the mediation that a note be put here and again Tenebrae refused either to do it himself or to let me do it [14]. Since the personal attacks have not abated, since Tenebrae feels he alone (from those who agreed to mediation) has the right to post here as he did today then clearly mediation is not working. Though I'm sure a number of editors will disagree; the close you have done seems to agree with . Yworo, Taylornate, Nymf, yourself and myself and also The early positions of AndyTheGrump, Youreallycan, who later compromised on a footnote and the later position Andy as well. Though it should probably be closed by a neutral editor rather than yourself. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is such a gross distortion of the facts, I don't know where to begin. As I'm sure Andy the Grump would agree, criticism of someone's position or behavior is not a personal attack. Secondly, I asked the mediating admin to put a notice here; that he has not done so is disappointing, but I don't believe I or anyone should hound an admin who's already devoting his time voluntarily to help reach a mediated conclusion in a lengthy case — which, I would add, could have ended in a mature, collaborative compromise were it not for Stuart.Jamieson. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can get someone else to read through the above and come to a better conclusion then that is fine. I would either stop the mediation or keep the rfc tag off this page though as running both at the same time is just going to annoy editors. AIRcorn (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Had some time to think about this and admit that I shouldn't have edited the main article in my anger, but I will stand by the removal of the RFC tag. How about removing the sentence, adding a footnote linked to the infobox that says "Moores birth name has been reported as Demetria by the [insert reliable source]." (Use the twitter or interview to support Demi in the infobox) and be done with it. It's factual, doesn't give too much wait to Demetria without removing it completely and is something that has come up predominately within this RFC. Sure it is a compromise for some, but is this really worth extending any longer. Hell if it still bothers people we can come back in a month or two and start again. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the temperature of the discussion being lowered, AIRcorn. My concern about the suggestion above is that it gives too much weight the other way to "Demi" when these need to be given equal weight: The New York Times and Time Inc. are no less reliable sources that the Boston Globe or the Toronto Star. As AndyTheGrump said at 04:38, 29 December 2011, "We aren't trying to achieve anything other than indicate that the issue isn't clear-cut, and we aren't supposed to be implying one or the other is 'better'." --Tenebrae (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not determined just by their reputation, but by what information they are conveying. When it comes to her birth name, Demi Moore is more reliable than a newspaper. Anyway the use of a footnote was was agreed upon by the majority of editors here weeks ago. AIRcorn (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I need to ask you to also understand that what you're saying is POV. We can't pick and choose to decide that a source isn't reliable simply because we disagree with it.

You believe "When it comes to her birth name, Demi Moore is more reliable than a newspaper." That's your opinion, and you have every right to it. But that opinion is just that: an opinion. An experienced journalist, with more than 30 years of work in the field, has a different opinion, for a number of reasons I've probably already given on this page. Would you disagree with the idea that the opinion of a longtime professional journalist might have as much validity as your own?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, considering it is completely outside my field I would say his opinion has much more validity than my own opinion. It would also not be POV for anyone to say so. However we are not arguing my opinion vs a seasoned journalist, we are arguing the subject of the articles opinion on her name vs this journalist. You are saying that a journalist is more likely to know Moores birth name than Moore herself. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. First off, I presuming you know I'm speaking of myself, a more than three-decade journalist who has interviewed Moore and probably over two thousand other people. What I am saying that people don't always speak accurately, whether on purpose or inadvertently. Off the top of my head, I could give three, maybe four credible, real-world reasons why Moore may not be speaking accurately.

That is why — and, honestly, if you read newspapers and read about politics and world events and whatever other subjects impact your life, I'm sure you'd appreciate what I'm about to say — we do what's called secondary sourcing. That means we don't just take someone's word for something at face value: we check it out. And if something doesn't check out, we call it into question. I'm sure when you read a newspaper and some politician says he served in the Marines and it turned out he didn't, that you're glad we did that. This is the same thing. You can understand why it's important we do this, right? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No I did not know you were speaking of yourself, I assumed you were talking about the journalists that had previously used Demetria. While we are playing the expert game, I work in science, so understand full well about sourcing. I also know that despite multiple checks, peer-review and excruciatingly careful wording occasionally papers get published with mistakes. I understand you are defending your profession here, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think a journalist can make a mistake. AIRcorn (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a leap, when I'm speaking of specifics about a single case and you make the incredible jump to claim I'm saying journalists make no mistakes. You did not read carefully: I've spoken more than once about newspapers and magazines running corrections.

And I appreciate the scientific method, of course; while an undergrad, I co-authored a social-science study that I, another student and a professor submitted to, and I if remember correctly was published in, such a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not sure the scientific method applies here, since what's the hypothesis and how do we test it? And in any case, I have good faith that you would not publish as fact something that one person said that is at odds with, not universally, but certainly a significant number of extremely reliable sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae: Not only did you continue discussion after agreeing twice to put it on hold until mediation is complete, but you agreed and continued discussion in the same edit. How do you reconcile that?--Taylornate (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? I will stop responding on this page too until the mediation finishes as I am probably not helping AIRcorn (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It matters a great deal. If I cannot believe he is participating in good faith, then I cannot continue to participate and the mediation fails.--Taylornate (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't try and sneak comments in, like some may have done: I went right to the mediation page, made full disclosure, gave my reasons for admittedly breaking a rule, and apologizing for it. The risk of the RfC potentially being closed, or an attempt to be made, by a not-disinterested party seemed too great not to address, given all the work done here and in mediation. And I think all of us believed that Dweller, who made a very generous offer to help, would have more time to do so. Judging from these new discussions, perhaps mediation isn't working and we need to go to the next step, since it well appears some parties here and adamantly opposed to compromise and want their way or nothing.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good of you, Aircorn. I must say that I thought the RfC had run its course when I made my initial offer to mediate at the short-lived Arbcom page on this dispute.

Would people be agreeable to this being placed on-hold until either:

a) the editors at the mediation either have a working draft they're all happy enough with, which can be brought back here or b) the mediation fails

Happy to go with the consensus. As always. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly agree.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the above consensus is already here, you just have to filter out all the off-topic, unhelpful and repetitive comments. AIRcorn (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought we were very, very close. I wish very much that you were right. Clearly, at least one person disagrees or there wouldn't be a mediation. Fingers crossed. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been away for awhile and I can't believe this is still going on. I don't see how there's any argument here. Different solid respectable places say Demi and Demetria, so that's what we have to say. Favoring one or the other is POV. --108.21.104.134 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Result of mediation

After an RfC that began Dec. 27 that reached an impasse, followed by mediation by an admin at User:Dweller/Demi Moore that began Jan. 12, a compromise wording has been reached. This version, on which several editors worked diligently for over a month, is a footnote that acknowledges controversy over her birth name and balances Demi Moore's primary-source statements ("Demi") with secondary-source reporting from The New York Times, Variety, Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly magazines, the Biography Channel, the Encyclopedia Britannica and other WP:RS cites ("Demetria"), and which relegates it to a short statement under "References".

The current "Demetria" statement would be removed from the article body and the shortened lead and footnote would read:

"Demi Moore<footnote here> (born November 11, 1962) is an American actress...."

The FOOTNOTE reads: "References say Moore's name at her birth was Demetria Gene Guynes. (c.f. Evans, Cleveland (August 25, 2009). "A Semi 'Demi' Boom Ahead?". Omaha World Herald.) Moore wrote on Twitter, "Demi is the name I was born with!" in May 2009, and "Demetria is a beautiful name. [M]y full name though is actually just Demi!" in June 2009." END FOOTNOTE.

Comments are welcome. To avoid repetition, commenters may wish to read the mediation discussion at User:Dweller/Demi Moore. On behalf of myself and the other editors and the admin who worked and participated in this mediated compromise, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The footnote needs to reflect three things, and three things only: (a) some sources have stated that Demi was born 'Demetria', (b) other sources have stated that she was born 'Demi', and (c) she herself has stated that she was born 'Demi'. Misleading attempts to suggest that this is a disagreement between 'references' and Ms Moore are a violation of WP:NPOV, since she is demonstrably not the only source for 'Demi'. This 'mediation' seems to have been a misguided attempt to determine 'facts', rather than pointing out to our readers the only 'fact' we have - which is that different sources say different things. It isn't our job to determine the 'truth', and neither is it our job to decide which sources we describe as 'references', and which we chose to ignore, in an effort to arrive at a compromise. We can only honestly substitute "Some sources..." for "References..." in the footnote, to reflect what we already have sources for, and make it clear to our readers that this bit of trivial nonsense can't be answered one way or another on Wikipedia - and that we don't consider it our place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly didn't enter the mediation to determine 'facts' and explicitly rejected the idea that either position was presented on an established factual basis [15]. I entered mediation because the RFC was heated and non-neutral and I felt that mediation may have balanced that a bit - I'm not sure that it actually happened (in fact I'm downright certain that it didn't) but I certainly didn't enter it in order to prove a truth. We can choose which sources we consider references and which we ignore and we have the policy WP:FRINGE and I still have a concern that this whole argument is being unduly weighted by the pedigree of the sources rather than the pedigree of their claims (which IMHO would support Taylornate's argument that there is no need for a footnote - her claim is verification it's self) but I have agreed to a compromise on the basis that it's the only way to resolve the essential stalemate - Like you I would prefer a pronoun before "References" and I was prepared to go slightly further than "Some" by offering "Many" but compromise could not be reached on that as the source uses "Most" which appears both factually incorrect and potentially vague enough to be misleading. Not reaching a compromise here is just liable to see a round of forum shopping asking questions that probably should have been asked before the RFC about RS, OR, and BLP and these may happen later even if we reach compromise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are fallacies here that have to be addressed. Most importantly, Demi Moore's own statement is not the definitive word of God. She is a primary source and one that contradicts some of the most reputable and responsible news and academic organizations in the world. I did library research, and found Demetria references well before the advent of the public Internet. The New York Times and the Encyclopedia Britannica, among many other sources, are in no way WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE; if anything, Moore's is the minority opinion.

If you read the mediation page, you'll see that Moore herself is inconsistent on where her name comes from. Which of her versions should we believe? She has also given extremely inconsistent statements about other things, as fully documented with hard sources in the "Lincoln Center Library" section of the mediation page.

No journalist would just "take someone's word for it." If we did, then we'd have to believe any politician who said he'd been a Marine in Vietnam, rather than the RS publications that say otherwise. And an encyclopedia cannot have lower standards than journalism.

It is only POV that "Most" in the Omaha World-Herald is incorrect. Stuart has no basis other than his opinion to say that, whereas a professional journalist in a reliable-source publication says differently. By any objective standard, how does a layman's opinion trump a professional's research in a published statement that he has to stand behind? Most of what I've been seeing, in fact, is people here claiming their own personal opinions trump The New York Times, the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.

Incidentally, I myself had wanted to say, as Andy the Grump does, "Some sources say this, other sources say that, Moore says..." but there was objection to that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, again you willfully ignore common sense and Wikipedia policy that has been pointed out to you multiple times. Saying you are a war veteran is in no way comparable to saying what your name is. Claiming veteran status is unduly self-serving. Stating your name is not.--Taylornate (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is solely your opinion, not objective fact. My reasoned opinion is different from yours: Celebrities are concerned about their overall image, and everything they say or do is in some way self-serving since they are promoting a product — themselves. I find it hubristic for you to say your opinion is the only truth and mine is wrong. I wish you would stop being so emotional, jumping down my throat, making uncivil claims, and accusing me of ignoring common sense when common sense says we don't "just take someone's word for it" when they contradict some of the most reputable and responsible news and academic organizations in the world. And please read the documentation about Moore's inconsistent statements not only about her name but about other things. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, there is nothing 'civil' in your endless insinuations that Demi Moore is lying about her name, or with your ridiculous assertions that journalists don't make mistakes. You have been allowed to dominate this facile debate for far too long, and should be told to stop wasting everyone's time with your endless repetition of irrelevant opinion on the matter. The facts are self-evident: we have differing sources over the issue, and we need to make this clear to our readers. We must not try to determine the truth regarding this, and your attempts to do so are disruptive, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I think you'd do as well to let others decide how to act, before someone decides to ask for a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been in agreement with you about this; I'm not sure what your issue is. Stuart is the one who didn't want to say "Some sources say this, other sources say that, Demi Moore says...."

I have never said "journalists don't make mistakes." Please either back up that claim or retract it. I've also given several alternatives of why we should not just take Moore's or anyone's word for something when it contradicts some of the most reputable and responsible news and academic organizations in the world, a point you are deliberately ignoring.

And please don't make threats. You don't see me asking for sanctions against users who say their personal opinions trump The New York Times and the Encyclopedia Britannica, or who are insisting that this encyclopedia have a lower standard of verifiability than journalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think you are 'in agreement' with me (you aren't), your repeated unsourced insinuations that Ms Moore is a liar are contrary to Wikipedia policy: and as such, pointing out the possibility of a topic ban isn't 'a threat', it is merely an indication of the possible consequences of your actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think you'd welcome that we are in agreement. You say: "The footnote needs to reflect three things, and three things only: (a) some sources have stated that Demi was born 'Demetria', (b) other sources have stated that she was born 'Demi', and (c) she herself has stated that she was born 'Demi'." I agree with that.

If you want to pursue a topic ban, that may actually be good thing. I'll do likewise, since I don't believe admins and others outside this discussion will think it's Wikipedia policy that we just believe anything anybody says.

In the meantime, please tell me how we're not in agreement with what you said in paragraph one of this post? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we "just believe anything anybody says". I'm suggesting that we should give more weight to what Ms Moore says on the topic of her own name than to what you say on the same topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here that can be cleared up. It's not what I'm saying. It's what The New York Times, the Encyclopedia Britannica etc. say. I'm just not sure that we can pretend that such major sources don't say this. Giving an SPS more weight rather than equal weight — given the high-RS value of these sources, I'd be perfectly happy to discuss this position in any topic-ban or other discussion.

And I'm trying to be constructive here. Please re-read my first paragraph of my 17:18 post. How do I disagree with what you said? It's as if I can't say anything you'd agree with even when I agree with what you just said. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I invoked God in this matter yet it's the third time you've implied religious motives in my editing - I may or may not be a man of God, but I know right, and I know wrong, and I have the good grace to know which is which. Again you are citing pedigree of the sources rather than the pedigree of their claims - The pedigree of their claims is not based upon who they are but where they say they got the information - so far as I can see none of the sources you have presented do that (although the nameless I.P. made the claim that the 1996 people claim came directly from Demi when clearly it didn't.) not that this matters because you are undermining the existing consensus - that I'm still willing to work from - by arguing with me about it.

Moore's statements vary throughout her life and the three examples you give are of very different points in her life - Throughout that time she underwent several episodes of distancing and reconciling with her mother are you expecting that her knowledge of her mother and Virginia and Danny Guynes' actions would not change during those periods as she interacted with her mother? It seems you would rather imply she is unreliable because of these perfectly natural differences in the story.

Yet you cannot explain whose word the Journalists did take for it (even though you know and work alongside some of them and could ask them), this is what makes them unreliable and continually asserting that they can't be unreliable simply makes a mockery of the so called "Journalistic Standards" you keep bringing up. Our policies are clear even the best newspapers in the world will make mistakes - but you argue that this can't be true. We can have higher standards - we can see there is a doubt as to the claim and choose not to mention it at all if we wish.

It's not POV it's factual - If I do a Google Books Search for "Demi Guynes" I get 167 Books the first page returns mostly biographical articles- If I repeat the search for "Demetria Guynes" I get 84 books and the first page returns 2 issues of Weekly World News, 2 Maths Textbooks, a Pregnancy (Baby Names) Textbook, Several sections within unrelated books copying lists that show some celebrities have different names but not acutally verifying them as correct and 1 biographical article - and the other pages of the search aren't much better. What about a news search 9 unique biographies/articles for "Demi" - For "Demetria" we have only actually 6 biographies/other articles which are reported multiply because they have published by multiple newspapers. General Google hits - "222,800" for "Demi [w/wo Gene] Guynes" "174,000" for "Demetria [w/wo Gene] Guynes" So yes if Cleveland Evans says the sky is green and I can observe it to be blue then I'm not going to put it in the article sky and cite that it's green to him, If he says that most sources say "Demetria" and I can see that most accessible sources actually say "Demi" then I'm not going to put it in the article - it's a lot more than "my opinion" it's an observable and repeatable inquiry, and as I said in mediation this claim would be aWP:REDFLAG if we were to make it in the article and Cleveland Evans is not an exceptional source to assert it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Word of God" is an expression, Stuart — a colloquialism meaning a statement of infallible truth. I'll use that latter phrase if you're more comfortable with it.

Aside from the fact that there is much information in libraries and print archives that is not online, counting the number of Google hits is untenable when many of them are going to be mirror sites of what this very article has stated at different points, accurately or not. And in any case, I never argued for "Most"! I went with the adjective-less version that you and Aircorn also found non-objectionable.

RE: "Our policies are clear even the best newspapers in the world will make mistakes - but you argue that this can't be true." I have not; again, please show me where I said this or else retract it. Indeed, I've said just the opposite: That The New York Times and Time Inc. publications have published corrections for things as small as mistaking one-L "Philip" for two-L "Phillip." Honest disagreement is fine; making up falsehoods about me is not.

Personal opinions about Moore's relationship with her mother are irrelevant OR speculation. I'm just citing her own words in published sources, and not ascribing my opinions to them.

So what does it come down to? Did you go into that mediation in bad faith, never intending to find a compromise that you would go on to support? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not uncomfortable with either phrase - I just wondered if there was any significance in the regular use of religious terminology, your reply suggests not but I'll wait and see if any more appear.

So we ignore the hits and just note the reliable sources in books and news articles which still doesn't support what Evans has said so I still wouldn't report it as fact. also you never said "You can't change the wording or the meaning of the Omaha World-Herald to suit your presumptions. Let's quote the paper directly", "The Omaha World-Herald article cited says 'Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes.' I don't think it's proper to change the meaning or the wording of the citation. The sentence should begin with "Most."", " use the specific term that the professional journalist and columnist ", all before you agreed to support the adjective-less version (that Andy is now suggesting another adjective in front of)?

Actually I believe you originally said that they would have printed a retraction had they made a mistake and that still appears to be your implication here - that they can't have made a mistake because they haven't printed a retraction. Mistakes are made and they aren't always retracted.

You miss the point that Moore was repeating a story told to her by her mother so it was liable to change as time passed and it was repeated again. Unless the contradiction is significant enough to be a story in itself then we don't need to record every variation just the most recent. And you do ascribe your opinions when you label her "inconsistent" and twice you label her a "liar" on Dwellers page even quoting one of the sources showing that they never ascribed that term to her.

I never went into the mediation in bad faith - and I'm quite happy to work from the position we reached to get a further consensus with Andy and others (and I said that quite explicitly) and it's bad faith to suggest otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than make a point-by-point rebuttal, I'm acceding to your good faith list of options below. I think it's a very constructive thing you did, and I admire your forthrightness in distilling the RfC and mediation discussions to three compromise wordings. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is solely your opinion, not objective fact. My reasoned opinion is different from yours: Celebrities are concerned about their overall image, and everything they say or do is in some way self-serving since they are promoting a product — themselves. I find it hubristic for you to say your opinion is the only truth and mine is wrong.
— User:Tenebrae

You continually state that someones word should not be used as a reliable source in any situation. WP policy clearly states that someones word can be used in some cases and criteria are listed. You say the criteria would never be met in any situation because a statement will always be self-serving. Your view clearly is in conflict with the policy.--Taylornate (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your view seems to be that we should go on gut instinct — in other words, opinion — on when we should just take someone's word for it. The whole point of not just swallowing whatever anybody says is that we don't know when they're being credible or when they're not. You quibble with my example and miss the overriding principle behind it: Don't just take someone's word for anything but always check your sources, especially when they contradict other sources. I don't imagine you'd like to live in a world where journalists just believed anybody they thought was credible. Oh, wait — that's the tabloid press. An encyclopedia should be better than that. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, your options are to (1) grudgingly accept the policy and work within it, (2) try to get consensus to change the policy, or (3) to stop editing on Wikipedia.--Taylornate (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Wikipedia policy and actual Wikipedia policy are not the same thing. WP:SPS says we may use such sources; it doesn't advocate using them, and it in no way whatsoever says SPSs have veto power over what some of the world's leading newspapers, magazines and encyclopedias say. Please show me how the policy says what you're saying it does. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To put it simply, the policy says may and you have been saying may not. The policy says it is possible for a statement about one's self to not be unduly self-serving. You have been saying all statements about one's self are unduly self-serving. I haven't said anything about veto power. --Taylornate (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And I have never said anything about not using her tweets. In fact, I've been totally in favor of using one or both of her tweets for this entire discussion. So I'm really not sure what you're suggesting. In any event, it seems as if several editors are being constructive and trying to move forward to make the article as carefully worded and accurate as possible. Ultimately, that's what all of us want for all Wikipedia articles. I'm sure you and I have common ground in that.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are saying your anecdote about a non-Vietnam war veteran was merely an irrelevant tangent, then I would suggest you stop going on irrelevant tangents.--Taylornate (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)