Talk:Demi Moore

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.59.228 (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009‎ (UTC)

Wording of Lead

On the BLP noticeboard, Jimbo Wales raises issues with the lead in it's current form: As a means to address those issues, I'd like to propose the following:

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".[1] 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" [2]? 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 [3] 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 [4] 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.

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)

I would raise a question about that, but since posing the original question I have entered mediation with Tenebrae and Taylornate (see: User:Dweller/Demi Moore) - one of the conditions of that mediation is that any discussion about the dispute needs to go through the mediation process as such I am unable to respond here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)